: . , .
, , , . , . , , , , , , . , . . , , , , . .
. , , , . , , , . , , - .
, , . , . , , , , , . , - , .
, , . - , , , - .
, 1738 [2], , . , , $1000 85% ( 15% ), $800 . , ( ) . : 0.85*$1000 + 0.15*$0 = $850, $800. . , , - .
|
|
, , . , -
, American Psychologist 1984 ., vol. 39, . 4, pp. 341 - 350. Copyright by the American Psychologist Association. . .
. . , . . , . . , . , . , . , .
C) 2003 .
. 31
. 1. .
, , , . , , , . , , , $200 $100 , $1200 $1100. , , $800, 80% $1000. , - $800 80% $1000, .
. , $20 W W + $20, W - $20. : , , ( " "). , , , , , . , (prospect theory) [12]. , , , . . $200 $100 , $1200 $1100. , S- , . 1.
|
|
, . 1, , () , , () , () , . , , , $ , $. : , . , $10 , $30.
. , , - . , - , . , , , $1000 85% ( 15% ) $800 . , . , , (- $850) (-$800). [8, , 17, 22]. , , [5] [6, 25, 26]. ? , . ,
. 32
, S- .
, . , [27], , , , . ( , ) ( , , , " " " "), . . , , ; (, [1]). , : . : , , , , , , . , . , , , . , , , .
|
|
. , [13]. , , - , . , . , . N, , , .
1 (N = 152 ):
, , , , 600 . . , :
, 200 (72% )
, 33.3% 66.6% (28%).
?
1 , 600 . , . , : 200 , 600 1/3.
, , .
2 (N=155):
, 400 (22%)
D, 1/3 , 2/3 600 (78%).
, D 2 , , 1. , . , , - , , . , , , , ( D), 400 . , , .
1 . , , ,
1 . - . .
. 33
. , . , , " ", , " "; . , .
|
|
, .
3 (N = 86):
-
E. 25% $240 75% $760 (0%)
F. 25% $250 75% $750 (100%) , F . , .
4 (N= 150):
, . , , .
(i). :
A. $240 (84%)
B. 25%- $1000 75%-
(16%)
(ii). :
C. $750 (13%)
D. 75%- $1000 25%- (87%)
, , , ; , , . , 73% D, 3% . , , .
4 , D . . $240 ( ) D 25% $240 75% $760. , 3. , S- .
: , . , , . , , . , , , [20]. , , , . , , . , (. 4), . , , , . , (. 1 2) - , , ?
, , - , . ,
. 34
( , , ), , . : , , . [6].
|
|
, , . , . - , , , $300 . , $300. ? , 0 ( ) 1 ( $300 ).
, , . 0% 5% , 30% 35%, , , 95% 100%. (category-boundary effect): , , . , . 2, . . 2 , . , .05 , 5% . .
. 2 . , . . , , , , , .
: . , , , . , , .
, :
5 (N = 85):
. 75%, 25%. , :
. $30 (74%)
. 2. .
. 35
B. 80%- $45 (26%)
, , . , .
6 (N = 81):
?
C. $30 25% (42%)
D. $45 20% (58%)
5 , $30 .25, - .25*.80 =.20 $45.
5 6, , . , : 5, , 6. , ( ), .
: . , : 5 , , , , . , , , , 80% - . , $30 85% $45. , (. . 2); , $30, . (pseudo- certainity effect), , , , .
, . , , , . , - : " , . , , ". ? . 2. /2 , /2 0. .
. -, . , , [. 12]. -, , , , . , . -, . , , , (), .
. 2 , . , , . , , [22] , , 20 10 , , , , .
. .
. 36
, " " " " . , , , , . , , [16]. , , . . , , , .
, , , , , , . , . . , [23] , , "" , . : , , , - - . , , , . , , .
, . , . , , , , - , , , , [4]. , , , - .
. , , . , - , , . . , , . - - . , ( ) .
[24], (mental accounting) . , [18] [24], , .
7:
, $125 $15. : , , , 20 , $10. ?
, . -
. 37
: , (comprehensive account). , . - $5. , , . , - $15 $10. , . , , , , , .
- , . , , " " . , $5 . , , . $125 $120 , $15. , , , , . : 68% (N = 88) , $5 $15, 29% 93 , $5 $125. , , , .
: [18]. , (find the best buy), , $15 150- , $5 - 50-.
, , . , , , , , , . , , . , , , , .
, :
8 (N = 200):
, $10. , : . , . $10 ?
(46%) (54%) 9 (N=183)
, , $10. , : $10. $10 ?
(88%) (12%)
. $10, , , ? . , . , . , , , .
, . -
. 38
, . , . , , .
, , . (, , ), : . , $5 $15 , ; , $10 . , [13]. , . , . $5 $15 , , $10 200- . , , , . , , , , , .
- , - , - . , , , - . , - . , , , , -.
, , , [24] " " (endowment effect). , , , . , , , , , . . , [9,10,14]. , , . , (S) () . , (SI, T1), (S2, 2), . , , (SI, T1), (S2, 2), , , . , , .
, , . , . , . , -, : , . , . , , .
, , -
. 39
. , , , , , , , . , . , , , . , . , , : " ". , , .
, . , . - . , , $50 25% $200. [22] , 80% , . , 35% $50 25% $200. [21] [11]. , , . , , .
, :
10:
, 10% $95 90% - $5?
11:
$5 , 10% $100 90% - ?
, , , 132 . . , , , , 55% . 42 10, 11. , , -, . $5 , .
: , , . (dead-loss effect). [24] , , 2, , . , , . , , , : ? , , . , , , .
: () (experience value), , ; () (decision value), . , , . ,
2 , . - . .
. 40
. [15]. , , , .
, . - , . -, . , , , - . , , . (treadmill 3) [3] , , . . , , : . .
, . , . , , . , . , , , . , .
:
1. Allais M., Hagen . (eds). Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox. Hingnam, Mass.: D. Reidel Publishing. 1979.
2. Bernulli D. Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk // Econometrica. 1954. V. 22. P. 23 - 36. (Original work published in 1738.).
3. Brickman P., Campbell D. T. Hedonic relativism and planning the good society // Adaptation-level Theory: A Symposium. New York: Academic Press, 1971. P. 287 - 302.
4. Clark H. H., Clark E. V. Psychology and Language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977.
5. Brakar S. E., Sox H. C. Assessment of patients' preferences for therapeutic outcomes // Medical Decision Making. 1981.N1.P. 29 - 39.
6. Fischhoff B. Predicting frames // J. of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. 1983. N 9. P. 103 - 116.
7. Fischhoff ., Slavic P., Lichtenstein S. Knowing what you want measuring labile values // Cognitive Processes In Choice and Decision Behavior. Hillsdale, N.I.: Ere-baum, 1980. P. 117 - 141.
8. Fishburn P. C., Kochenberger G. A. Two-piece von Neumann- Morgenstern Utility functions // Decision Sciences. 1979. N 10. P. 503 - 518.
9. Gregory R. Measure of Consumer's Surplus: Reasons for the Disparity in Observed Values. Unpublished manuscript, Keene State College, Keene, N.H. 1983.
10. Hammack J., Brown O. M. Jr. Waterfowl and Wetlands: Toward Bioeconomic Analysis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkince. Univercity Press., 1974.
11. Hershey J. C., Schoemaker P. J. H. Risk taking and problem context in the domain of losses: an expected-utility analysis //J. of Risk and Insurance. 1980. N 47. P. 111 - 132.
12. Kahneman D., Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk // Econometrica. 1979. N 47. P. 263 - 291.
13. Kahneman D., Tversky A. The simulation heuristic. // Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982. P. 201 - 208.
14. Knetsch J., Sinden J. Willingless to pay and compensation demanded: Experimental evidence of an unexpected disparity in measures of value // Quarterly J. of Economics. 1984.
15. March J. O. Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice // Bell J. of Economics. 1978. N 9. P. 587 - 608.
16. McNeil ., Pauker S., Sox H. Jr., Tversky A. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies // New England J. of Medicine. 1982. N 306. P. 1259 - 1262.
17. Payne J. W., Laughhunn D. J., Crum R. Translation of gambles and aspiration level effects in risky choice behavior // Management Science. 1980. N 26. P. 1039 - 1060.
3 . - . .
. 41
18. Pratt J. W., Wise D., Zeckhauser R. Price differences in almost competitive markets // Quarterly J. of Economics. 1979. N 93. P. 189 - 211.
19. Savage L. J. The Foundation of Statistics. New York: Wiley. 1954.
20. Schlaifer R. Probability and Statistics for Business Decisions. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.
21. Schoemaker P. J. H., Kunreuther B. C. An experimental study of insurance decisions // J. of Risk and Insurance. 1979. N46. P. 603 - 618.
22. Slavic P., Fischhoff B., Lichtenstein S. Response mode, framing, and information-processing effects in risk assessment. New Directions for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Science: Question Framing and Response Consistency. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1982. P. 21 - 36.
23. Thaler R. Toward a positive theory of consumer choice// J. of Economic Behavior and Organization. 1980. N1. P. 39 - 60.
24. Thaler R. Using mental accounting in a theory of consumer behavior // J. of Marketing. 1984.
25. Tversky A. On the elicitation of preferences: descriptive and prescriptive considerations. Conflicting Objectives in Decisions. International Series on Applied Systems Analysis. New York: Wiley, 1977. P. 209 - 222.
26. Tversky A., Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice // Science. 1981. N 211. P. 453-458.
27. von Neumann J., Morgenstern O. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1947.
. 42