A critique of prospect theory and framing with particular reference to consumer decisions

A critique of prospect theory and framing with particular reference to consumer decisions

Prospect theory is criticized in this article for being borrowed from psychology without appropriate acknowledgement, for requiring mathematical calculations that are beyond the average person, for not investigating information processing during prospect theory choices, and for lacking application t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of consumer behaviour 2019-09, Vol.18 (5), p.399-405
1. Verfasser: Rossiter, John R.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Consumer behavior
Ethics
Frame analysis
Information processing
Prospect theory
Psychology
Risk aversion
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 405
container_issue 5
container_start_page 399
container_title Journal of consumer behaviour
container_volume 18
creator Rossiter, John R.
description Prospect theory is criticized in this article for being borrowed from psychology without appropriate acknowledgement, for requiring mathematical calculations that are beyond the average person, for not investigating information processing during prospect theory choices, and for lacking application to real‐world decisions—such as important product and service choices made by consumers. Further criticism is leveled at the prospect theory‐derived technique known as “framing,” which is based on one‐sided presentation of information and would be unethical in most consumer behavior situations.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/cb.1779
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2307964831</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2307964831</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3279-4f90211b106278894254717eee53db90aa91911159bdefc7b86acf77c9b364b43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1LAzEQhoMoWKv4FwIePMjWzH4lOdbiFxS86MFTSLITm9Lurskupf_e1Hr1NDPwMPPMS8g1sBkwlt9bMwPO5QmZQMllBqIQp799njEB_JxcxLhOIMgqn5DPObXBD_57RNo52ocu9mgHOqywC3uq24a6oLe-_aI7P6xor8Pg7bjRgQZ0GLC1SIeO2q6N4xYDbdD66NN0Sc6c3kS8-qtT8vH0-L54yZZvz6-L-TKzRZ78SieTCxhgdc6FkGVelRw4IlZFYyTTWoIEgEqaBp3lRtTaOs6tNEVdmrKYkpvj3uSevoiDWndjaNNJlReMy7oUBSTq9kjZ9GFM6qoPfqvDXgFTh9yUNeqQWyLvjuTOb3D_H6YWD7_0D1rmbTc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2307964831</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A critique of prospect theory and framing with particular reference to consumer decisions</title><source>Business Source Complete</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Rossiter, John R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Rossiter, John R.</creatorcontrib><description>Prospect theory is criticized in this article for being borrowed from psychology without appropriate acknowledgement, for requiring mathematical calculations that are beyond the average person, for not investigating information processing during prospect theory choices, and for lacking application to real‐world decisions—such as important product and service choices made by consumers. Further criticism is leveled at the prospect theory‐derived technique known as “framing,” which is based on one‐sided presentation of information and would be unethical in most consumer behavior situations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1472-0817</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1479-1838</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/cb.1779</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Consumer behavior ; Ethics ; Frame analysis ; Information processing ; Prospect theory ; Psychology ; Risk aversion</subject><ispartof>Journal of consumer behaviour, 2019-09, Vol.18 (5), p.399-405</ispartof><rights>2019 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3279-4f90211b106278894254717eee53db90aa91911159bdefc7b86acf77c9b364b43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3279-4f90211b106278894254717eee53db90aa91911159bdefc7b86acf77c9b364b43</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0311-6506</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fcb.1779$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fcb.1779$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rossiter, John R.</creatorcontrib><title>A critique of prospect theory and framing with particular reference to consumer decisions</title><title>Journal of consumer behaviour</title><description>Prospect theory is criticized in this article for being borrowed from psychology without appropriate acknowledgement, for requiring mathematical calculations that are beyond the average person, for not investigating information processing during prospect theory choices, and for lacking application to real‐world decisions—such as important product and service choices made by consumers. Further criticism is leveled at the prospect theory‐derived technique known as “framing,” which is based on one‐sided presentation of information and would be unethical in most consumer behavior situations.</description><subject>Consumer behavior</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Frame analysis</subject><subject>Information processing</subject><subject>Prospect theory</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Risk aversion</subject><issn>1472-0817</issn><issn>1479-1838</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kE1LAzEQhoMoWKv4FwIePMjWzH4lOdbiFxS86MFTSLITm9Lurskupf_e1Hr1NDPwMPPMS8g1sBkwlt9bMwPO5QmZQMllBqIQp799njEB_JxcxLhOIMgqn5DPObXBD_57RNo52ocu9mgHOqywC3uq24a6oLe-_aI7P6xor8Pg7bjRgQZ0GLC1SIeO2q6N4xYDbdD66NN0Sc6c3kS8-qtT8vH0-L54yZZvz6-L-TKzRZ78SieTCxhgdc6FkGVelRw4IlZFYyTTWoIEgEqaBp3lRtTaOs6tNEVdmrKYkpvj3uSevoiDWndjaNNJlReMy7oUBSTq9kjZ9GFM6qoPfqvDXgFTh9yUNeqQWyLvjuTOb3D_H6YWD7_0D1rmbTc</recordid><startdate>201909</startdate><enddate>201909</enddate><creator>Rossiter, John R.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0311-6506</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201909</creationdate><title>A critique of prospect theory and framing with particular reference to consumer decisions</title><author>Rossiter, John R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3279-4f90211b106278894254717eee53db90aa91911159bdefc7b86acf77c9b364b43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Consumer behavior</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Frame analysis</topic><topic>Information processing</topic><topic>Prospect theory</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Risk aversion</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rossiter, John R.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Journal of consumer behaviour</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rossiter, John R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A critique of prospect theory and framing with particular reference to consumer decisions</atitle><jtitle>Journal of consumer behaviour</jtitle><date>2019-09</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>399</spage><epage>405</epage><pages>399-405</pages><issn>1472-0817</issn><eissn>1479-1838</eissn><abstract>Prospect theory is criticized in this article for being borrowed from psychology without appropriate acknowledgement, for requiring mathematical calculations that are beyond the average person, for not investigating information processing during prospect theory choices, and for lacking application to real‐world decisions—such as important product and service choices made by consumers. Further criticism is leveled at the prospect theory‐derived technique known as “framing,” which is based on one‐sided presentation of information and would be unethical in most consumer behavior situations.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1002/cb.1779</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0311-6506</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1472-0817
ispartof Journal of consumer behaviour, 2019-09, Vol.18 (5), p.399-405
issn 1472-0817
1479-1838
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2307964831
source Business Source Complete; Wiley Online Library All Journals
subjects Consumer behavior
Ethics
Frame analysis
Information processing
Prospect theory
Psychology
Risk aversion
title A critique of prospect theory and framing with particular reference to consumer decisions
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T01%3A44%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20critique%20of%20prospect%20theory%20and%20framing%20with%20particular%20reference%20to%20consumer%20decisions&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20consumer%20behaviour&rft.au=Rossiter,%20John%20R.&rft.date=2019-09&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=399&rft.epage=405&rft.pages=399-405&rft.issn=1472-0817&rft.eissn=1479-1838&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/cb.1779&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2307964831%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2307964831&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true