Strength of Preference and Effects of Valence in the Domains of Gains and Losses

Yamagishi, Kimihiko

doi:10.1006/obhd.1996.0057

Cited by 8 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the absence of data that allow examination of such subjective weighting processes (e.g. Yamagishi (1996) performed such analyses), one may be tempted to rely on alternative explanations to understand the current results. Therefore, further research is needed to determine if the focus shift process were in effect in producing the results in Figures 7-11.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More recent developments report conditions under which participants ceased to switch their preferences between the gain and loss frames (Fagley & Miller, 1990;Jou, Shanteau, & Harris, 1991, 1996Takemura, 1992Takemura, , 1993Takemura, , 1994. In this paper, such findings are called unframing effects .…”

Section: Framing and Unframing Effects In Preferential Choicementioning

confidence: 92%

“…Thus, preference for the certain or uncertain option switched between the gain and loss frames. 2 Subsequent research in the laboratory setting showed numerous replications of the framing effect (Fagley & Miller, 1990;Jou, Shanteau, & Harris, 1991, 1996Takemura, 1992Takemura, , 1993Takemura, , 1994. Moreover, McNeil, Pauker, Sox, and Tversky (1982) noted that medical practitioners and patients were also susceptible to the framing effect in their choice of medical care options.…”

Section: Framing and Unframing Effects In Preferential Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The last part of the review introduces another asymmetry in strength‐of‐preference judgments, which was investigated independently of the line of framing research. It shall be suggested that asymmetries in strength of preference, namely “valence effects” (Yamagishi, 1996; Yamagishi & Miyamoto, 1996), may be used as a diagnostic tool to assess a decision‐maker's perceived domain as pertaining to either gains or losses. Two experiments attempted to use valence effects to see whether decision‐makers who exhibit the “gain pattern” of preference also exhibit a “gain pattern” of the valence effect, whereas those who show the “loss pattern” of preference also show the “loss pattern” of the valence effect.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effects of valence and framing in decision‐making: Assessing decision‐makers’ perceived domains of choice

Yamagishi

2002

Jpn Psychol Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In comparison between choice alternatives, judgments of "How much better is a preferred option?" and "How much worse is a less preferred option?" may differ in their magnitudes. Such discrepancies are called "valence effects". Previously, Yamagishi and Miyamoto (1996) observed systematic positive valence effects ("Better" exceeding "Worse") in the domain of gains and systematic negative valence effects ("Worse" exceeding "Better") in the domain of losses. The current experiments used the directions of valence effects as a tool to assess decision-maker's interpretation of choice tasks under "framing effects" (Tversky & Kahneman, 1986). Preferences under the framing effect switch from certain options in the domain of gains to uncertain options in the domain of losses. Two experiments showed that preferences for certain options were associated with positive valence effects, whereas preferences for uncertain options were associated with negative valence effects. Moreover, conditions wherein the framing manipulations lose the effectiveness were examined. Valence effects showed that framing effects ceased to occur when decision-makers maintained consistent domain perceptions as pertaining to gains or to losses, across the domains of gains and losses. Implications are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Framing and Unframing Effects In Preferential Choicementioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Framing and Unframing Effects In Preferential Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of valence and framing in decision‐making: Assessing decision‐makers’ perceived domains of choice

Yamagishi

2002

Jpn Psychol Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Assume that the decision maker can express strength of preference between objects of different types, such as bundles of goods, apartments, and large-scale projects, so that assessing gains among different objects is possible. It is well known that judgments on gains and losses are asymmetric (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979;Yamagishi, 1996). This issue is of course relevant, but will not be discussed here because the primary interest is in the decision maker's ability to express strength of preference judgments.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Empirical Study of Equivalence Judgments vs. Ratio Judgments in Decision Analysis*

Lai

2001

Decision Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two commonly used elicitation modes on strength of preference, equivalence and ratio judgments, were compared in an experiment. The result from the experiment showed that ratio judgments were less effective than equivalence judgments. Based on an iterative design for eliciting multiattribute preference structures, equivalence judgments outperformed ratio judgments in estimating single-attribute measurable value functions, while being nearly more effective than ratio judgments in assessing multiattribute preference structures. The implications of the results from the experiment are that multiattribute decision-making techniques should take advantage of the decision maker's inclination of making effective equivalence trade-off judgments, and that useful techniques should be devised to incorporate different commonly used techniques, such as multiattribute utility theory and the Analytic Hierarchy Process, to elicit and consolidate equivalence trade-off judgments.

show abstract

Public Input in Rural Land Preservation: Modeling Preference

Johnston¹,

Giraud²,

Schaeffer³

2008

Commodity Modeling and Pricing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Strength of Preference and Effects of Valence in the Domains of Gains and Losses

Cited by 8 publications

References 6 publications

Effects of valence and framing in decision‐making: Assessing decision‐makers’ perceived domains of choice

Effects of valence and framing in decision‐making: Assessing decision‐makers’ perceived domains of choice

An Empirical Study of Equivalence Judgments vs. Ratio Judgments in Decision Analysis*

Public Input in Rural Land Preservation: Modeling Preference

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About