Choosing is losing: How opportunity cost influences valuations and choice

IF 1.5 4区 心理学 Q2 MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Journal of Mathematical Psychology Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-04 DOI:10.1016/j.jmp.2025.102901
Tomás Lejarraga , József Sákovics
{"title":"Choosing is losing: How opportunity cost influences valuations and choice","authors":"Tomás Lejarraga ,&nbsp;József Sákovics","doi":"10.1016/j.jmp.2025.102901","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>We propose a model of choice that accounts for opportunity costs actually suffered, as a result of renouncing the alternative not chosen. The valuation of each option is relative: The decision maker subtracts from the standard utility of any given option the psychological cost of giving up the alternative. In the presence of a default option, the final inclination of a person is the net effect of a ‘conservative’ disposition to keep the default and an ‘adventurous’ disposition toward choosing an alternative. This trait-like inclination is captured by the difference in sensitivity to giving up the default option or its alternative(s). When the options have elements in common, the conservative and adventurous dispositions operate only on their distinguishing elements. Unlike previous conceptualizations of anticipated regret, our decision maker suffers most when the foregone option is of comparable value to the chosen one. Our model can explain the empirical regularity that faced with the same choice, some people tend to favor the default option (a form of endowment effect), while others tend to favor its alternative (a form of fear of missing out). In the presence of several alternatives, the decision maker compares the default option with the best option among the alternatives.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50140,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Mathematical Psychology","volume":"124 ","pages":"Article 102901"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Mathematical Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022249625000033","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We propose a model of choice that accounts for opportunity costs actually suffered, as a result of renouncing the alternative not chosen. The valuation of each option is relative: The decision maker subtracts from the standard utility of any given option the psychological cost of giving up the alternative. In the presence of a default option, the final inclination of a person is the net effect of a ‘conservative’ disposition to keep the default and an ‘adventurous’ disposition toward choosing an alternative. This trait-like inclination is captured by the difference in sensitivity to giving up the default option or its alternative(s). When the options have elements in common, the conservative and adventurous dispositions operate only on their distinguishing elements. Unlike previous conceptualizations of anticipated regret, our decision maker suffers most when the foregone option is of comparable value to the chosen one. Our model can explain the empirical regularity that faced with the same choice, some people tend to favor the default option (a form of endowment effect), while others tend to favor its alternative (a form of fear of missing out). In the presence of several alternatives, the decision maker compares the default option with the best option among the alternatives.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
选择就是失败:机会成本如何影响估值和选择
我们提出了一个选择模型,该模型考虑了由于放弃未选择的替代方案而实际遭受的机会成本。每个选项的估值都是相对的:决策者从任何给定选项的标准效用中减去放弃该选项的心理成本。在存在默认选项的情况下,一个人的最终倾向是保留默认选项的“保守”倾向和选择替代选项的“冒险”倾向的净效应。这种特质般的倾向体现在对放弃默认选项或替代选项的敏感度差异上。当选择有共同的元素时,保守倾向和冒险倾向只在它们的不同元素上起作用。与先前预期后悔的概念不同,当放弃的选项与选择的选项具有相当的价值时,我们的决策者遭受的损失最大。我们的模型可以解释这样的经验规律:面对同样的选择,一些人倾向于默认选项(一种禀赋效应),而另一些人倾向于选择它的替代选项(一种害怕错过的形式)。在存在多个备选方案的情况下,决策者将默认方案与备选方案中的最佳方案进行比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Mathematical Psychology
Journal of Mathematical Psychology 医学-数学跨学科应用
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
11.10%
发文量
37
审稿时长
20.2 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Mathematical Psychology includes articles, monographs and reviews, notes and commentaries, and book reviews in all areas of mathematical psychology. Empirical and theoretical contributions are equally welcome. Areas of special interest include, but are not limited to, fundamental measurement and psychological process models, such as those based upon neural network or information processing concepts. A partial listing of substantive areas covered include sensation and perception, psychophysics, learning and memory, problem solving, judgment and decision-making, and motivation. The Journal of Mathematical Psychology is affiliated with the Society for Mathematical Psychology. Research Areas include: • Models for sensation and perception, learning, memory and thinking • Fundamental measurement and scaling • Decision making • Neural modeling and networks • Psychophysics and signal detection • Neuropsychological theories • Psycholinguistics • Motivational dynamics • Animal behavior • Psychometric theory
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Identifiability of the polytomous local independence model with graded knowledge structures Analytical bifurcation analysis of mean-field Ising models reveals connectivity as a risk factor for psychopathology Information of absence: Capacity measures for parallel AND processing A hitchhiker’s guide to information theoretical measures in psychology
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1