Asia Marketing Journal

Korean Marketing Association (한국마케팅학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Modeling the Relationship between Expected Gain and Expected Value

  • Won, Eugene J.S. (Department of Business Administration, Dongduk Women's University)
  • Received : 2016.09.05
  • Accepted : 2016.10.26
  • Published : 2016.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Rational choice theory holds that the alternative with largest expected utility in the choice set should always be chosen. However, it is often observed that an alternative with the largest expected utility is not always chosen while the choice task itself being avoided. Such a choice phenomenon cannot be explained by the traditional expected utility maximization principle. The current study posits shows that such a phenomenon can be attributed to the gap between the expected perceived gain (or loss) and the expected perceived value. This study mathematically analyses the relationship between the expectation of an alternative's gains or losses over the reference point and its expected value, when the perceived gains or losses follow continuous probability distributions. The proposed expected value (EV) function can explain the effects of loss aversion and uncertainty on the evaluation of an alternative based on the prospect theory value function. The proposed function reveals why the expected gain of an alternative should exceed some positive threshold in order for the alternative to be chosen. The model also explains why none of the two equally or similarly attractive options is chosen when they are presented together, but either of them is chosen when presented alone. The EV function and EG-EV curve can extract and visualize the core tenets of the prospect theory more clearly than the value function itself.

Keywords

References

  1. Akerlof, G. A., 1970. The market for "lemons": quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q. J. Econ. 84(3), 488-500.
  2. Allais, M., 1953. Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque des postulats et axiomes de l'ecole americaine. Econometrica, 21, 503-546.
  3. Anderson, J. R., and Bower, G. H., 1973. Human Associative Memory, V. H. Winston & Sons, Washington, D.C.
  4. Arrow, K. J., 1951. Alternative approaches to the theory of choice in risk-taking situations. Econometrica, 19(4), 404-437.
  5. Barberis, N., Huang, M., Santos, T., 2001. Prospect theory and asset prices. Quart. J. Econom. 66, 1-53
  6. Bass, F., 1969. A new product growth for model consumer durables. 15(5), 215-227.
  7. Benartzi, S. Thaler, R. H., 1995. Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. Quart. J. Econom. Feb., 73-92.
  8. Bhat, C. R., 1995. Heteroscecastic extreme value model of intercity travel mode choice. Transp. Res., 29(6), 471-483.
  9. Carpenter, G.S., Nakamoto, K., 1989. Consumer preference formation and pioneering advantage. J. Mark. Res., 26 (August), 285-98.
  10. Dhar, R., 1997. Consumer preference for nochoice option. J. of Consum. Res., 24(Sept.), 215-234.
  11. Dhar, R., Simonson, I., 2003. The effect of forced choice on choice. J. Mark. Res., 40(May), 146-160.
  12. Hardie, B. G., Johnson, E.J., Fader, P.S., 1993. Modeling loss aversion and reference dependence effects on brand choice. Mark. Sci., 12(4), 378-394.
  13. Hoch, S. J., Deighton, J., 1986. Managing what consumers learn from experience. J. Mark., 53(April), 1-20.
  14. Hsee, C., Leclerc, F., 1998. Product look more attractive when presented separately or together. J. Consum. Res., 25(Sep.), 175-186.
  15. Huber, J., Payne, J.W., Puto, C., 1982. Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: violations of regularity and similarity hypothesis. J. Consum. Res., 9(June), 90-98.
  16. Kahneman, D., Tversky, A., 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrika, 47(2), 263-291.
  17. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., Thaler, R. H., 1991, Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. J. Econ. Perspect. 5(Winter), pp.193-206
  18. Keon, J.W., 1980. The bargain value model and a comparison of managerial implications with the linear learning model. Manag. Sci., 26(11), 1117-1130.
  19. Kerin, R.A., Varadarajan, P.R., Peterson, R.A., 1992. First mover advantage: a synthesis, conceptual framework, and research propositions. J. Mark., 56(October), 33-52.
  20. Kivetz Ran, Netzer, Oded, and Srinivasan, V. 2004. Alternative models for capturing the compromise effect," J. Mark. Res., 41(August), 237-257.
  21. Luce, M.F., 1998. Choosing to avoid: coping with negatively emotion-laden consumer decisions. J. Consum. Res., 24(March), 409-433.
  22. Mehra, R., Prescott, E. C., 1985. The equity premium: a puzzle," J. Monet. Econ. 15, 145-62
  23. Rooderkerk, R. P., Van Heerde, H. J., & Bijmolt, T. H. A. 2011. Incorporating context effects into a choice model. J. Mark. Res., 48, 767-780.
  24. Samuelson, Paul A., (1963), Risk and uncertainty: a sallacy of large numbers, Scientia, 57(April), 108-13.
  25. Samuelson, W., Zeckhauser, R., 1988. Status quo bias in decision making. J. Risk Uncertain., 1(Jan.), 7-59
  26. Schmalensee, R., 1982. Product differentiation advantages of pioneering brands. Am. Econ. Rev., 72(June), 349-65.
  27. Sen, S., 1998. Knowledge, information mode, and the attraction Effect. J. Consum. Res., 25(June), 64-77.
  28. Shafir, E., Simonson, I., Tversky, A., 1993. Reason-based choice. Cogn., 49, 11-36.
  29. Simon, Herbert 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69 (1), 99-118
  30. Simonson, I., 1989. Choice based on reasons: the case of attraction and compromise Effects. J. Consum. Res., 16(Dec.), 158-174.
  31. Slovic, P., 1975. Choice between equally valued alternatives. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perform., 1, 280-287.
  32. Slovic, P., 1991. The construction of preference. Am. Psychol., 50(5), 364-71.
  33. Thaler, R. H., Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., Schwartz, A., 1997. The effect of myopic loss aversion on risk taking: an experimental test, Quart. J. Econom., May, 647-661
  34. Tversky, A., Russo, J., 1969. Substitutability and similarity in binary choice. J. Math. Psychol, 6, 1-12.
  35. Tversky, A., Sattath, S., Slovic, P., 1988. Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychol. Rev., 95(3), 371-384.
  36. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., 1991. Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference dependence model. Q. J. Econ., 107, 1039-61.
  37. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., 1992. Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk. Uncertain., 297-323.
  38. Tversky, A., Shafir, E.B., 1992. Choice under conflict: the dynamics of deferred decision. Psychol. Sci., 6(November), 5, 358-361.
  39. Tversky, A., Simonson, I., 1993. Context-dependent preferences. Manag. Sci., 39(10), 1179-1189.
  40. Tversky, A., Thaler, R., 1990. Anomalies: preference reversals. J. Econ. Perspect., 4(2), 201-211.
  41. Urban, G.L., Carter, T., Gaskin, S., Mucha, Z., 1986. Market share rewards to pioneering brands: an empirical analysis and strategic implications. Manag. Sci., 32 (June), 645-659.
  42. Usher, M., and McClelland, J. L. 2004. Loss aversion and inhibition in dynamical models of multialternative choice, Psychol. Rev., 111, 757-769
  43. von Neumann, J., Morgenstern, O., 1944. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.