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

Stating the Obvious: How “Ugly” Labels Can Increase the Desirability of Odd-Shaped Produce

Siddhanth Mookerjee, University of British Columbia, Canada
Yann Cornil, University of British Columbia, Canada
Joey Hoegg, University of British Columbia, Canada

Read More

Featured

Linguistic Antecedents of Anthropomorphism

N. Alican Mecit, HEC Paris, France
tina m. lowrey, HEC Paris, France
L. J. Shrum, HEC Paris, France

Read More

Featured

How Regional Diasporic Consumer Experiences Produce Transnational Imaginary

Mark Buschgens, RMIT University
Bernardo Figueiredo, RMIT University
Kaleel Rahman, RMIT 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.