Choice and the relative pleasure of consequences.

Abstract

Although pleasure played a central role in early theories of decision making, it gradually became peripheral, largely because of measurement concerns. Normative theories became more mathematical, and descriptive theories emphasized cognition over emotion. In recent years, there has been a renewed interest in emotions and choice. This article examines attempts to model pleasure and pain in terms of utilities, decision weights, and counterfactual comparisons. Research on disappointment and regret has provided both empirical and theoretical insights. Many researchers now realize that the predictability of the emotions that follow from decisions is as important as the predictability of choice.

Using facial EMG and eye tracking to study integral affect in discrete choice experiments

“…That is, this view holds that consumers compare affective states associated with the options offered, and choose the option with the optimal affective outcome. It also has been suggested that affect serves to reduce complexity, by decomposing complex thoughts into affective states (Mellers, 2000;Pfister and Bohm, 2008) that are subsequently evaluated against one another. Thus, immediate affect may play a role in many, if not all, consumer choices.…”

Age-related differences in evaluating developmental stability

“…Subjective outcome expectations determine the evaluation of outcomes of choices as gains or losses and, thereby, the emotional reactions to these outcomes (Mellers, 2000). We apply the same rationale to the evaluation of developmental outcomes.…”

The Quest for Rationality: Chief Financial Officers’ and Accounting Master’s Students’ Perception of Economic Rationality

“…Whereas the expected utility theory is concerned with long-term outcomes, the prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979Tversky & Kahneman, 1981, 1992) emphasizes shortterm consequences by portraying the emotions that are experienced at moments of change from one state to another (Kahneman, 2000;Mellers, 2000). This is an important contribution, because people tend systematically to fail to comply with the predictions of the expected utility theory (Barberis, 2013;Barberis & Thaler, 2003;Kahneman & Tversky, 2000).…”