The DOI matches its Crossref record; 103 of the 104 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A dual system model of preferences under risk
Abstract
This article presents a dual system model (DSM) of decision making under risk and uncertainty according to which the value of a gamble is a combination of the values assigned to it independently by the affective and deliberative systems. On the basis of research on dual process theories and empirical research in Hsee and Rottenstreich (2004) and Rottenstreich and Hsee (2001) among others, the DSM incorporates (a) individual differences in disposition to rational versus emotional decision making, (b) the affective nature of outcomes, and (c) different task construals within its framework. The model has good descriptive validity and accounts for (a) violation of nontransparent stochastic dominance, (b) fourfold pattern of risk attitudes, (c) ambiguity aversion, (d) common consequence effect, (e) common ratio effect, (f) isolation effect, and (g) coalescing and event-splitting effects. The DSM is also used to make several novel predictions of conditions under which specific behavior patterns may or may not occur.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“As with autonomic function, arousal states can habituate if the appetitive behaviors become routine, leading to less potent gratification and a dampening of mesolimbic dopamine response over time.”
From Assessment and treatment of compulsive sexual behavior disorder: a sexual medicine perspective (2024) · cites this paper as [92]
Citations
Cites
Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk
Kahneman, D. J., & Tversky, A. (1988) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609220.014 · Cited by 32,720
Theory of games and economic behavior
Garcia, S. R., & Miller, S. J. (2019) · American Mathematical Society eBooks · doi:10.1090/mbk/121/32 · Cited by 16,777
Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00122574 · Cited by 15,467
(1994) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · Cited by 10,542
“Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms.”
Ellsberg, D. (1961) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1884324 · Cited by 7,891
Anderson, N. H. (2001) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410600004-24 · Cited by 6,939
(1999) · Cited by 6,104
Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267 · Cited by 5,955
Kahneman, D. J., & Tversky, A. (2013) · World Scientific handbook in financial economic series · doi:10.1142/9789814417358_0016 · Cited by 5,379
Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics
Kahneman, D. (2003) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/000282803322655392 · Cited by 5,377
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Schildberg-Hörisch, H. (2018) · The Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.32.2.135 · Cited by 483
Dual processes in decision making and developmental neuroscience: A fuzzy-trace model
Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (2011) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2011.07.004 · Cited by 393
“Recently, scholars have proposed dual-process models in which processing conformed either to expected value (or expected utility) versus prospect theory (e.g., Loewenstein & O'Donoghue, 2005; Mukherjee, 2010).”
BackgroundThe effect of cognitive load on economic decision making: A survey and new experiments
Deck, C., & Jahedi, S. (2015) · European Economic Review · doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2015.05.004 · Cited by 304
Emotion and decision-making: affect-driven belief systems in anxiety and depression
Paulus, M. P., & Yu, A. J. (2012) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.07.009 · Cited by 287
Enke, B., & Graeber, T. W. (2023) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjad025 · Cited by 262
Metadata
- Authors
- Mukherjee, K.
- Affiliations
- INSEAD (SG)
- Corresponding author
- Mukherjee, Kanchan
- Venue
- Psychological Review
- Published
- 2010
- Volume
- 117
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 243-255
- ISSN
- 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1471
- OpenAlex
- W1996734429
- Cited by
- 198
- References
- 104
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 6.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Centre for Decision Making and Risk Analysis
- INSEAD
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- dual-process models, decision making under risk, decision making under uncertainty, dual-process theory, ambiguity aversion, common ratio effect, isolation effect, preference elicitation
- MeSH terms
- Affect, Attitude, Choice Behavior, Decision Making, Humans, Models, Psychological, Risk-Taking
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
