Domine Edilen Statükonun Referans Etkisi

Year 2018, Issue: 639, 987 - 999, 01.05.2018

Begüm Güney

Abstract

Statüko, bir kişinin şu anki konumunu temsil eder. Çalışılan iş ve yaşanılan şehir statüko için verilebilecek örnekler arasındadır. Bir statüko, kendi seçilmese bile, diğer alternatifler arasındaki göreceli sıralamayı değiştirerek kişinin bu alternatifler arasındaki seçimini etkileyebilir ve buna “referans etkisi” denir. Bu çalışmada, statükoların referans etkisini anlamak için Özyeğin Üniversitesi lisans öğrencileri arasında bir anket yapılmıştır. Anket, Qualtrics programı kullanılarak hazırlanmış ve katılımcıların e-posta adreslerine tek kullanımlık bir bağlantı gönderilerek öğrencilerle paylaşılmıştır. Ankette katılımcılardan, depolama kapasitesi ve pil ömrü ile tanımlanmış farklı telefonlar arasında seçim yapmaları istenmiştir. Görülmüştür ki, statüko diğer alternatiflerin her biri tarafından domine edildiğinde - yani diğer alternatiflerden hem pil ömrü hem depolama kapasitesi bakımından daha kötü olduğunda - ve kendi seçilmediğinde bile, kişinin bu alternatifler arasındaki seçimini değiştirebilir. İstatistiki olarak anlamlı miktarda kişinin, aynı kümeden statüko varlığında ve yokluğunda yaptığı seçimlerin farklı olduğu görülmüştür. Bu davranış, literatürdeki teorik statüko modelleri arasından ancak sürekli referans etkisine izin verenler (Guney ve Richter, 2017) tarafından açıklanabilmektedir.

Keywords

Statüko, Seçim, Referans Etkisi, Sürekli Referans Etkisi JEL Kodları: D00, C83, C91

Reference Effect of a Dominated Status Quo

Abstract

Status quos represent one’s current standing, such as current job or current city. A status quo can change the relative ranking among other options and hence influence choices even if itself isn’t chosen. This is called the “reference effect”. In the present study, we conducted a survey among undergraduate students at Ozyegin University in order to understand status quos’ reference effects. The survey was prepared using the program Qualtrics and distributed to subjects via one-time link that was sent to their e-mail addresses. Subjects were asked to make choices among phones that were defined by the storage capacity and battery life. A status quo that was dominated by all other options in the choice set was observed to influence choices among these options even though the status quo itself wasn’t chosen. A statistically significant amount of choices from the same set were observed to differ depending on whether or not there was a dominated status quo in the choice problem. This effect can only be explained by status quo-based theories that allows for status quo’s continuous reference effects (Guney and Richter, 2017).

Keywords

Status Quo. Reference Effect, Continuous Reference Effect JEL Classifications: D00, C83, C91

References

• CHOI, James, David LAIBSON, Brigitte MADRIAN ve Verew METRICK; (2004), For Better or For Worse: Default Effects and 401(k) Savings Behavior, Perspectives in the Economics of Aging. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• FARQUHAR, Peter H. ve Anthony R. PRATKANIS; (1992), “A Brief History of Research on Phantom Alternatives: Evidence for Seven Empirical Generalizations About Phantoms, Basic and Applied Social Psychology”, 13, pp. 103–122.
• FARQUHAR, Peter H. ve Anthony PRATKANIS; (1993), “Decision Structuring with Phantom Alternatives, Management Science”, 39, pp. 1214–1226.
• GUNEY, Begum ve Michael RICHTER; (2015), “An Experiment on Aspiration-Based Choice, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organizations”, 119, pp. 512-526.
• GUNEY, Begum ve Michael RICHTER; (2017), “Choice and Games with Switching Costs”, https://drive.google.com/file/d/148r7XPBEFcgPO3w_D-RVSdVnFB2G7IhN/view?usp=sharing 04.12.2017
• HUBER, Joel, John W. PAYNE ve Christopher PUTO; (1982), “Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis”, Journal of Consumer Research: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 9, pp. 90–98.
• JOHNSON, Eric J. ve Daniel GOLDSTEIN; (2003), “Do Defaults Save Lives?”, Science, 302, pp. 1338-1339.
• MADRIAN, Brigitte C. ve Dennis F. SHEA; (2001), “The Power of Suggestion: Inertia in 401k Participation ve Savings Behavior”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, pp. 1149–1187.
• MASATLIOGLU, Yusufcan ve Efe OK; (2005), “Rational Choice with Status Quo Bias”, Journal of Economic Theory, 121, pp. 1–29.
• MASATLIOGLU, Yusufcan ve Efe OK; (2014), “A Canonical Model of Choice with Initial Endowments”, The Review of Economic Studies, 81, pp. 851–883.
• MASATLIOGLU, Yusufcan ve Neslihan ULER; (2013), “Understanding the Reference Effect”, Games and Economic Behavior, 82, pp. 403–423.
• OK, Efe, Pietro ORTOLEVA ve Gil RIELLA; (2014), “Revealed (P)reference Theory”, The American Economic Review, 105, pp. 299–321.
• ORTOLEVA, Pietro; (2010), “Status Quo Bias, Multiple Priors ve Uncertainty Aversion”, Games and Economic Behavior, 69, pp. 411–424.
• RIELLA, Gil ve Roee TEPER; (2014), “Probabilistic Dominance ve Status Quo Bias”, Games and Economic Behavior, 87, pp. 288–304.
• SAMUELSON, William ve Richard ZECKHAUSER; (1988), “Status Quo Bias in Decision Making, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty”, 1, pp. 7–59.
• SIMONSON, Itamar; (1989), “Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects”, Journal of Consumer Research, 16, pp. 158-174.
• THALER, Richard H. ve Cass R. SUNSTEIN; (2008), “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, ve Happiness”, Connecticut: Yale University Press.