The susceptibility of mental accounting principles to evaluation mode effects

Datos Bibliográficos

ID12166271
AutoresSubimal Chatterjee (Binghamton University, autor de correspondencia), Timothy B Heath (0000-0002-8223-7559, Miami University), Junhong Min (SUNY New Paltz)
Año2008
Volumen22
Número2
Páginas120-137
Fecha de publicación2008-07-14
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaJournal of Behavioral Decision Making (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0894-3257 • E-ISSN: 1099-0771
EditorialWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1002/bdm.616
OpenAlexW1981106441
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas5
Referencias citadas43

The present research shows that the predictions and outcomes of mental‐accounting tests depend on whether preferences are measured separately (one at a time) or jointly (comparatively). Across five studies, we show that joint evaluation weakens some decision biases (the theater ticket problem, the calculator and jacket problem), but exacerbates others (the basketball game problem). Joint evaluations serve as a check on whether people think the answers they give in separate evaluations make sense or require adjustment. We discuss how the findings impact (1) tests of mental accounting predictions (between vs. within subjects designs), and (2) the normative status of mental accounting. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Actuarial science · Basketball · Calculator · Economics · Joint (building · Mental accounting · Mental model · Mode (computer interface · Normative · Political science · Ticket · Applied Psychology · Computer Science · Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics · Economic and Environmental Valuation · Engineering · Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies · Law · Psychology · Social Psychology · Accounting