CiteULike: Ключевое слово loss_aversion

Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem

Matthew Rabin — 2005-08-18T21:44:08-00:00

Econometrica, Vol. 68, No. 5. (2000), pp. 1281-1292.

Contrast effects or loss aversion? Comment on Usher and McClelland (2004).

JR Busemeyer — 2006-09-29T14:43:40-00:00

Psychological Review, Vol. 112, No. 1. (January 2005), pp. 253-255.

M. Usher and J. L. McClelland (2004) recently proposed a new connectionist type of model to explain context effects on preferential choice including the similarity, attraction, and compromise effects. They compared their model with an earlier connectionist type model for these same effects proposed by R. Roe, J. R. Busemeyer, and J. T. Townsend (2001) and raised several new issues. The authors address these issues and point out the main theoretical differences between the 2 explanations for context effects.

Loss aversion and inhibition in dynamical models of multialternative choice.

M Usher — 2006-09-29T14:43:02-00:00

Psychological Review, Vol. 111, No. 3. (July 2004), pp. 757-769.

The roles of loss aversion and inhibition among alternatives are examined in models of the similarity, compromise, and attraction effects that arise in choices among 3 alternatives differing on 2 attributes. R. M. Roe, J. R. Busemeyer, and J. T. Townsend (2001) have proposed a linear model in which effects previously attributed to loss aversion (A. Tversky & D. Kahneman, 1991) arise from attention switching between attributes and similarity-dependent inhibitory interactions among alternatives. However, there are several reasons to maintain loss aversion in a theory of choice. In view of this, an alternative theory is proposed, integrating loss aversion and attention switching into a nonlinear model (M. Usher & J. L. McClelland, 2001) that relies on inhibition independent of similarity among alternatives. The model accounts for the 3 effects and makes testable predictions contrasting with those of the Roe et al. (2001) model.

Evolution of Reinforcement Learning in Uncertain Environments: Emergence of Risk-Aversion and Matching

Yael Niv — 2007-04-19T16:48:40-00:00

: Advances in Artificial Life : 6th European Conference, ECAL 2001, Prague, Czech Republic, September 10-14, 2001, Proceedings (2001), 252.

Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model

Amos Tversky — 2005-08-11T08:19:56-00:00

The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 106, No. 4. (1991), pp. 1039-1061.

Much experimental evidence indicates that choice depends on the status quo or reference level: changes of reference point often lead to reversals of preference. We present a reference-dependent theory of consumer choice, which explains such effects by a deformation of indifference curves about the reference point. The central assumption of the theory is that losses and disadvantages have greater impact on preferences than gains and advantages. Implications of loss aversion for economic behavior are considered.

What is Loss Aversion?

Ulrich Schmidt — 2005-04-22T09:56:15-00:00

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 30, No. 2. (March 2005), pp. 157-167.

The Neural Basis of Loss Aversion in Decision-Making Under Risk

Sabrina Tom — 2007-01-30T10:47:34-00:00

Science, Vol. 315, No. 5811. (26 January 2007), pp. 515-518.

People typically exhibit greater sensitivity to losses than to equivalent gains when making decisions. We investigated neural correlates of loss aversion while individuals decided whether to accept or reject gambles that offered a 50/50 chance of gaining or losing money. A broad set of areas (including midbrain dopaminergic regions and their targets) showed increasing activity as potential gains increased. Potential losses were represented by decreasing activity in several of these same gain-sensitive areas. Finally, individual differences in behavioral loss aversion were predicted by a measure of neural loss aversion in several regions, including the ventral striatum and prefrontal cortex. 10.1126/science.1134239