Peanuts effect in intertemporal decision-making processes.
Main Article Content
Abstract
The intertemporal choice refers to the individual decision-making process when analyzing the preferences between two rewards with different due dates. That is to say, it aims to analyze the preferences between two rewards (x1,t1) and (x2,t2) , where x1 smaller than x2 and t1 smaller than t2 (Cruz et al., 2016). Traditionally, the financial model used to describe the individual behavior is the discounted utility model (Samuelson, 1937). This is based on the exponential discounting which assumes that decisions are taken in a rational and consistent way. However, subsequent empirical studies conclude that the discounted utility model must be corrected by the so-called “anomalies in intertemporal choice” in order to properly describe the individual behavior. Some of the well-known anomalies are interval effect, magnitude effect, sign effect, sequence effect and dissemination effect.
Nevertheless, an important anomaly which until now has not been studied in depth and which deserves special consideration is the so-called peanuts effect. This anomaly considers that risk aversion increases for large rewards, with individuals more willing to take greater risks when the involved amount is lower (Weber and Chapman, 2005).
The propensity for risky decisions involving a small reward is partly explained by the fact that the anticipation of the negative emotion of deception is less than when the expected reward is greater. In this way, the decision-maker exhibits more risk propensity for small and/or unlikely rewards because the negative emotion derived from a negative result is smaller. This work presents an analysis of the peanuts effect through a review of the literature as well as its mathematical treatment.
The present work has been financed by the project: “La Sostenibilidad del Sistema Nacional de Salud: Reformas, Estrategias y Propuestas” (reference: DER2016-76053-R).
Downloads
Article Details
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
References
Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497.
Berns, G. S., Laibson, D. & Loewenstein, G. (2007). Intertemporal choice-toward an integrative framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(11), 482-488.
Chapman, G. B. & Weber, B. J. (2006). Decision biases in intertemporal choice and choice under uncertainty: testing a common account. Memory & Cognition, 34(3), 589-602.
Chapman, G. B. & Winquist, J. R. (1998). The magnitude effect: temporal discount rates and restaurant tips. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(1), 119-123.
Cruz Rambaud, S; Muñoz Torrecillas, M. J. & Sánchez Pérez, A. M. (2016): Elección intertemporal: algunas paradojas del modelo de utilidad descontada en S. Cruz Rambaud et al. (Eds.), Avances y Retos en la Economía Financiera Empresarial (125-146). Madrid: Editorial Universitaria Ramón Areces.
Downs, J. S. & Loewenstein, G. (2011). Behavioral Economics and Obesity in John C. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Social Science of Obesity (138-157). New York: Oxford University Press.
Frederiks, E. R. Stenner, K. & Hobman, E. V. (2015). Household energy use: applying behavioural economics to understand consumer decision-making and behaviour. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 41, 1385-1394.
Gordon, C. E. (2015). Behavioural Approaches to Corporate Governance. New York: Routledge.
Gourville, J. T. (1998). Pennies-a-day: the effect of temporal reframing on transaction evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 395-408.
Haisley, E., Mostafa, R. & Loewenstein, G. (2008). Myopic risk-seeking: the impact of narrow decision bracketing on lottery play. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 37(1), 57-75.
Hoch, S. J. & Loewenstein, G. F. (1991). Time-inconsistent preferences and consumer self-control. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 492-507.
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1982). The simulation heuristic in D. Kahneman et al. (Eds.) Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (201-208). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lindsey, L. L. M., Yun, K. A. & Hill, J. B. (2007). Anticipated guilt as motivation to help unknown others: an examination of empathy as a moderator. Communication Research, 34(4), 468-480.
Loewenstein, G. & Prelec, D. (1992): Anomalies in intertemporal choice: evidence and an interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 573-597.
Loewenstein, G., Friedman, J. Y. , McGill, B., Ahmad, S., Linck, S., Sinkula, S. & Madrian, B. C. (2013). Consumers’ misunderstanding of health insurance. Journal of Health Economics, 32(5), 850-862.
Loewenstein, G., John, L. K. & Volpp, K. (2013). Using decision errors to help people help themselves in E. Shafir (ed.), Behavioral Foundations of Public Policy (361-379). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Markowitz, H. (1952). The utility of wealth. Journal of Political Economy, 60, 151-158.
O’Keefe, D. (2002). Persuasion: theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Perugini, M. & Bagozzi, R. P. (2004). The distinction between desires and intentions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(1), 69-84.
Prelec, D. & Loewenstein, G. (1991). Decision making over time and under uncertainty: a common approach. Management Science, 37(7), 770-786.
Rao, L. L. & Li, S. (2011). New paradoxes in intertemporal choice. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(2), 122.
Read, D. & Loewenstein, G. (2000). Time and decision: introduction to the special issue. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(2), 141.
Roberto, C. A. & Kawachi, I. (2015): Behavioral Economics and Public Health. New York: Oxford University Press.
Samuelson, P. A. (1937). A note on measurement of utility. The Review of Economic Studies, 4(2), 155-161.
Schneider, M. J. (2016). Introduction to public health. United States of America: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Suzuki, S. (2015): Negative emotion or problem content? Testing explanations of the peanuts effect. Psychological reports, 116(1), 1-12.
Steenhaut, S. & Patrick K. (2006). The mediating role of anticipated guilt in consumers ethical decision-making,” Journal of Business Ethincs, 69(3), 269-288.
Thaler, R. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science,4(3), 199-214.
Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(1), 39-60.
Thaler, R. H., Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. & Schwartz, A. (1997). The effect of myopia and loss aversion on risk taking: an experimental test. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 647-661.
Weber, B. J. & Chapman, G. B. (2005): Playing for peanuts: why is risk seeking more common for low-stakes gambles? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(1), 31-46.
Wertenbroch, K. (1994). Marketplace Implications of Consumer Self-Control (Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago School of Business). The University of Chicago.