Hedonic Editing Revisited

When evaluating outcomes, prospect theory predicts that individuals should integrate losses and segregate gains. However, evidence for this hedonic editing hypothesis has been mixed, particularly in the domain of losses. We propose and demonstrate that the integration or segregation of outcomes depends on perceptions of possible category-membership.



Citation:

Ellen Evers, Alex Imas, and George Loewenstein (2016) ,"Hedonic Editing Revisited", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 44, eds. Page Moreau, Stefano Puntoni, and , Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 436-436.

Authors

Ellen Evers, University of California Berkeley, USA
Alex Imas, Carnegie Mellon University, USA
George Loewenstein, Carnegie Mellon University, USA



Volume

NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 44 | 2016



Share Proceeding

Featured papers

See More

Featured

R7. How and Why Life Transition Influences Brand Extension Evaluation

lei su, Hong Kong Baptist University
Alokparna (Sonia) Monga, Rutgers University, USA
Yuwei Jiang, Hong Kong Polytechic University

Read More

Featured

To Apologize, or Not to Apologize? That is A Question - How Should an Organization Respond to Executive Employees’ Private Life Misconduct?

Zayed Bin Islam, University of Guelph, Canada
Juan Wang, University of Guelph, Canada
Towhidul Islam, University of Guelph, Canada

Read More

Featured

D9. Consumption Closure as a Driver of Positive Word of Mouth

Christina Saenger, Youngstown State University
Veronica Thomas, Towson University

Read More

Engage with Us

Becoming an Association for Consumer Research member is simple. Membership in ACR is relatively inexpensive, but brings significant benefits to its members.