Relationships between risk aversion and choice overload
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rp.v11n2a03Keywords:
Behavioral economics, Decision-making, Decision science, Risk aversion, Choice overload.Abstract
This paper presents an evaluation of correlations between the measurable indicators of Risk Aversion and Choice Overload, in a sample made up of 120 university students. The results indicate various correlations in the time indicator, and significant differences by gender. The time, when read into isolation, strengthens one-way explanations that took the decision-maker as the cause of the decisions, in some cases, and the environment, in others. Two levels of analysis are presented: (1) operational variables, which includes considerations directly related to the observable indicators measured and their results, and (2) analysis of the indistinct, where questions are established about the level of transcendence of visible data, the understanding of decision-making situations as complex information systems that depend on change, and the discussion about the tendency to explain the causes of behavior in decisive conflict situations or contexts unidirectionally.
Downloads
References
Arrow, K. J. (1965). Aspects of the theory of risk bearing. Helsinki: Academic Bookstores.
Baas, N.A. (1994): Emergence, Hierarchies, and Hyperstructure. En: C. G. Langton, ed., Artificial Life III, Santa Fe Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, XVII. California: Addison-Wesley.
Bernoulli, D. (1954). Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk. Econometrica, 22(1), 23–36.
Bechtel, W. and Richardson, R. C. (1993). Discovering complexity: Decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Birnbaum, M. H. (2008). New paradoxes of risky decision making. Psychological Review, 115, 463–501.
Botti, S. y Iyengar, S. S. (2004). The psychological pleasure and pain of choosing: When people prefer choosing at the cost of subsequent outcome satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 312–326.
Brandstätter, E., Gigerenzer, G., y Hertwig, R. (2006). The priority heuristic: Making choices without trade-offs. Psychological Review, 113, 409–432.
Chernev, A. (2003a). Product assortment and individual decision processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 151–162.
Chernev, A. (2003b). When more is less and less is more: The role of ideal point availability and assortment in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 170–183.
Chernev, A. (2005). Feature complementarity and assortment in choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 748–759.
Chernev, A. (2006). Decision focus and consumer choice among assortments. Journal of Consumer Research, 50–59.
Chernev, A. y Hamilton, R. (2009). Assortment size and option attractiveness in consumer choice among retailers. Journal of Marketing Research, 410–420.
Chernev, A.; Böckenholt, U. y Goodman, J. (2014). Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 25(2), 333–358.
Chicaíza, L. A.; García, M. y Romano, G. (2011). La aversión al riesgo en la toma de decisiones médicas: una revisión. Lecturas de economía, Universidad de Antioquia.
Diehl, K. y Poynor, C. (2010). Great expectations?! Assortment size, expectations and satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 312–322.
Fasolo, B., Carmeci, F. A., y Misuraca, R. (2009). The effect of choice complexity on perception of time spent choosing: When choice takes longer but feels shorter. Psychology & Marketing, 26(3), p.p. 213–228.
Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Heuristic Decision Making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 62, 451-482.
Gneezy, U. List, J. A. y Wu, G. (2006). The Uncertainty Effect: When a Risky Prospect is Valued Less than its Worst Possible Outcome. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(4), 1283–1209.
Goodman, J., y Malkoc, S. (2012). Choosing here and now versus there and later: The moderating role of psychological distance on assortment size preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 751–768.
Gourville, J. T., y Soman, D. (2005). Overchoice and assortment type: When and why variety backfires. Marketing Science, 382–395.
Greifeneder, R., Scheibehenne, B. y Kleber, N. (2010). Less may be more when choosing is difficult: Choice complexity and too much choice. Acta Psychologica, 133, 45–50.
Haynes, G. A. (2009). Testing the boundaries of the choice overload phenomenon: The effect of number of options and time pressure on decision difficulty and satisfaction. Psychology & Marketing, 26, 204–212.
Holt, C. A. y Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects. The American Economic Revier, 92 (5), 1644–1655.
Inbar, Y., Botti, S., y Hanko, K. (2011). Decision speed and choice regret: When haste feels like waste. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 533–540.
Iyengar, S. S., y Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 995–1006.
Kahneman, D. y Tversky, A. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, New Series, 185(4157), 1124–1131.
Kahneman, D. y Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analisis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.
Kusev, P.; van Shaik, P.; Ayton, P.; Dent, J. y Chater, N. (2009). Exaggerated risk: Prospect theory and probability weighting in risky choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 35(6), 1487.
Kusev, P.; van Schaik, P. y Aldrovandi, S. (2012). Preferences induced by accessibility: Evidence from priming. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 5(4), 250.
Lin, C. y Wu, P. (2006). The effect of variety on consumer preferences: The role of need for cognition and recommended alternatives. Social Behavior & Personality, 34, 865–875.
Malinietski, G. G. (2005). Fundamentos matemáticos de la sinergética: caos, estructuras y simulación por ordenador. Serie Sinergética: del pasado al futuro. Traducido de la cuarta edición rusa. Moscú: Editorial URSS.
Mogilner, C., Rudnick, T. y Iyengar, S. S. (2008). The Mere categorization effect: How the presence of categories increases choosers' perceptions of assortment variety and outcome satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 202–215.
Morrin, M., Broniarczyk, S. y Inman, J. (2012). Plan format and participation in 401(K) plans: The moderating role of investor knowledge. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 254–268.
Oppewal, H. y Koelemeijer, K. (2005). More choice is better: Effects of assortment size and composition on assortment evaluation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22, 45–60.
Pratt, J. W. (1964). Risk Aversion in the Small and in the Large. Econometrica, 32(1-2), 122–36.
Scheibehenne, B.; Greifeneder, R. y Todd, P. M. (2009). What moderates the too-much-choice effect? Psychology & Marketing, 26, 229–253.
Sela, A.; Berger, J. y Liu, W. (2009). Variety, vice, and virtue: How assortment size influences option choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 941–951.
Shah, A. M. y Wolford, G. (2007). Buying behavior as a function of parametric variation of number of choices. Psychological Science, 369–370.
Simon, H. (1955). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.
Simondon, G. (2015). La individuación a la luz de las nociones de forma e información. Segunda edición. Buenos Aires: Cactus.
Toffler, A. (1970). Future shock. New York: Random House.
Townsend, C. y Kahn, B. (2014). The “visual preference heuristic:” The influence of visual versus verbal depiction on assortment processing, perceived variety, and choice overload. Journal of Consumer Research, 993–1015.
Tversky, A. y Kahneman, D. (1983). Choices, Values, and Frames. APA Award Addresses. Vol. 39, No. 4, p.p. 341-350.
Tversky, A., y Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.
von Neumann, J., y Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behavior (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (2013). Problemas del desarrollo de la psique. Obras escogidas - III. Madrid: Machado grupo de distribución.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Revista de Psicología Universidad de Antioquia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Texts submitted for evaluation to the Journal of Psychology of the University of Antioquia must have never been published before, nor been accepted for future publication by any other journal.
Upon the Journal’s acceptance for publication of submitted material, the author partially transfers his/her rights on the article, preserving those relative to its non-commercial use and academic circulation as a free-access file.
Except if otherwise decided, this Journal’s content is covered by a Creative Commons licence “Attribution - Non-commercial – share a like” Colombia 4.0. The licence can be checked out here.
