Prospect Theory and the Risks Involved in Decision-Making: Content Analysis in ProQuest Articles
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24023/FutureJournal/2175-5825/2016.v8i1.224Keywords:
Prospect theory. Perceived risk. Decision making. Content analysis.Abstract
In this study, the objective is to perform content analysis on articles of a reliable database, dealing with the prospect theory and the risks involved in the decision making process, evaluating some criteria for the theoretical and methodological approaches that allow a joint analysis and comparative. Therefore, a search in ProQuest database was performed which resulted in 15 articles that were submitted to content analysis process, based on the evaluation of nine factors identified by researchers. Among the results highlight the critical attitude to the prospect theory, in contrast to the assertion of his representative capacity of real situations and application in various situations.
Downloads
References
Abdellaoui, M., Bleichrodt, H., & L'Haridon, O. (2008, June). A tractable method to measure utility and loss aversion under prospect theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 36(3), 245-266.
Bardin, L. (2011). Análise de conteúdo. São Paulo: Edições 70.
Baucells, M., & Villasís, A. (2010, February). Stability of risk preferences and the reflection effect of prospect theory. Theory and Decision, 68(1-2), 193-211.
Bazerman, M. H. (1994). Judgment in managerial decision making (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Bazerman, M. H. (2004). Processo decisório: para cursos de administração e economia (A. S. Marques Trad.). Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier.
Bell, D., Raiffa, H., & Tversky, A. (1988). Descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions in decision making. In D. Bell, H. Raiffa & A. Tversky (Eds.), Decision making: descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bereby-Meyer, Y., Meyer, J., & Flascher, O. M. (2002, October). Prospect theory analysis of guessing in multiple choice tests. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(4), 313-327.
Bernard, C., & Ghossoub, M. (2010, March). Static portfolio choice under cumulative prospect theory. Mathematics and Financial Economics, 2(4), 277-306.
Buchholz, W., Schymura, M. (2012). Expected utility theory and the tyranny of catastrophic risks. Ecological Economics, 77, 234-239.
Bueno, R. L. P., & Azevedo, M. C. (2011). Produção científica sobre racionalidade na tomada de decisão organizacional estratégica. Anais do Encontro da Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração - EnANPAD, 35, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1970). Diseños experimentales y cuasi experimentales en la investigación social. Buenos Aires: Amorrortu.
Chateauneuf, A., & Wakker, P. (1999, August). An axiomatization of cumulative prospect theory for decision under risk. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 18(2), 137-145.
Clemen, R. T. (1996). Making hard decisions – An introduction to decision analysis (2nd ed.). Belmont: Duxbury Press.
Costa, R. S., & Freitas, H. (2011). O papel da confiança do decisor no processo decisório em um contexto de risco. Anais do Congresso Internacional de Gestão de Tecnologia e Sistemas de Informação - Contecsi, 8, São Paulo,SP, Brasil.
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. (2004, Fall). The risk-based view of trust: a conceptual framework. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(1), 85-116.
Façanha, S. L. O., & Yu, A. S. O. (2011). Abordagem integrada. In: A. S. O. Yu (Coord.), Tomada de decisão nas organizações: uma visão multidisciplinar. São Paulo: Saraiva.
Featherman, M., & Savlou, P. A. (2003). Predicting e-services adoption: a perceived risk facts perceptive. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 59(4), 451-474.
Gontijo, A. C., & Maia, C. S. C. (2004, outubro-dezembro). Tomada de decisão, do modelo racional ao comportamental: uma síntese teórica. Caderno de Pesquisas em Administração, 11(4), 13-30.
Hansson, S. O. (1994). Decision theory: a brief introduction. Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology.
Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2009, June). Expected utility theory and prospect theory: one wedding and a decent funeral. Experimental Economics, 12(2), 133-158.
Kahneman, D. P., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1988). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979, March). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica (pre-1986) , 47(2), 263-292.
Kim, E. H., Morse, A., Zingales, L. (2006, Fall). What Has Mattered to Economics Since 1970. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20, n. 4, 189–202Laroche, M., McDougall, G., Bergeron, J., & Yang, Z. (2004, April). Exploring how intangibility affects perceived risk. Journal of Service Research, 6(4), 373-389.
Liu, Z., & Liu, Q. (2008, March). Can group decision-making mitigate propensity of escalating commitment? An experimental research based on the prospect theory. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 2(1), 33-49.
Macedo, M. A. S., Alyrio, R. D., & Andrade, R. O. B. (2007, maio-agosto). Análise do comportamento decisório: um estudo junto a acadêmicos de administração. Revista de Ciências da Administração, 9(18), 35-55.
March, J. (1994). A primer on decision making: how decisions happen. New York: Free Press.
Mercer, J. (2010, Winter). Emotional Beliefs. International Organization, 64, 1–31.
Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Théorêt, A. (1976, June). The structure of unstructured decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(2), 246-275.
Nwogugu, M. (2005a). Towards multi-factor models of decision making and risk: A critique of Prospect Theory and related approaches, Part I. The Journal of Risk Finance, 6(2), 150-162.
Nwogugu, M. (2005b). Towards multi-factor models of decision making and risk: A critique of Prospect Theory and related approaches, Part II. The Journal of Risk Finance, 6(2), 163-173.
Nwogugu, M. (2005c). Towards multi-factor models of decision making and risk: A critique of prospect theory and related approaches, Part III. The Journal of Risk Finance, 6(3), 267-274.
Pfiffelmann, M. (2011, September). Solving the St. Petersburg Paradox in cumulative prospect theory: the right amount of probability weighting. Theory and Decision, 71(3), 325-341.
Rieger, M. O., & Bui, T. (2011, September). Too risk-averse for prospect theory?. Modern Economy, 2(4), 691-700.
Rosness, R. (2009, July). A contingency model of decision-making involving risk of accidental loss. Safety Science, 47(6), 807–812.
Salminen, P., & Wallenius, J. (1993, March/April). Testing prospect theory in a deterministic multiple criteria decision-making environment. Decision Sciences, 24(2), 279-294.
Schmidt, U., & Zank, H. (2008, January). Risk aversion in cumulative prospect theory. Management Science, 54(1), 208-216.
Simon, H. A. (1965). Comportamento administrativo: estudo dos processos decisórios nas organizações administrativas (2 ed.). Rio de Janeiro: FGV.
Thaler, R. H. (2000). From homo economicus to homo sapiens. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(1), 133-141.
Von Neumann, J., Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Zsambok, C. E. (1997). Naturalistic decision making: where are we now? In: C. E. Zsambok, & G. Klein, Naturalistic decision making. New Jersey: LEA.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms: the author(s) authorize(s) the publication of the text in the journal;
2. The author(s) ensure(s) that the contribution is original and unpublished and that it is not in the process of evaluation by another journal;
3. The journal is not responsible for the views, ideas and concepts presented in articles, and these are the sole responsibility of the author(s);
4. The publishers reserve the right to make textual adjustments and adapt texts to meet with publication standards.
5. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right to first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Atribuição NãoComercial 4.0 internacional, which allows the work to be shared with recognized authorship and initial publication in this journal.
6. Authors are allowed to assume additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (e.g. publish in institutional repository or as a book chapter), with recognition of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
7. Authors are allowed and are encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on a personal web page) at any point before or during the editorial process, as this can generate positive effects, as well as increase the impact and citations of the published work (see the effect of Free Access) at http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html
• 8. Authors are able to use ORCID is a system of identification for authors. An ORCID identifier is unique to an individual and acts as a persistent digital identifier to ensure that authors (particularly those with relatively common names) can be distinguished and their work properly attributed.
