서울대학교 행복연구센터
  • 행복연구센터
  • 행복DB
  • 행복스토리
  • 뉴스레터
  • 행복교육
  • H드라이브
No Result
View All Result
  • 행복연구센터
  • 행복DB
  • 행복스토리
  • 뉴스레터
  • 행복교육
  • H드라이브
No Result
View All Result
서울대학교 행복연구센터
No Result
View All Result

Kahneman, D., &Thaler, R. H. (2006). Anomalies: Utility maximization and experienced utility. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 221-234.

서울대학교 행복연구센터 by 서울대학교 행복연구센터
5월 10, 2021
in 연구논문, 행복DB
Share on Facebook

 

In this column, we discuss a version of the utility maximization hypothesis that can be tested—and we find that it is false. We review empirical challenges to utility maximization, which return to the old question of whether preferences optimize the experience of outcomes. Much of this work has focused on a necessary condition for utility-maximizing choices: an ability of economic agents to make accurate, or at least unbiased, forecasts of the hedonic outcomes of potential choices. The research we review shows that this condition is not satisfied: people do not always know what they will like; they often make systematic errors in predicting their future experience of outcomes and, as a result, fail to maximize their experienced utility. We discuss four areas in which errors of hedonic forecasting and choice have been documented: 1) where the emotional or motivational state of the agent is very different at t0 and at t1; 2) where the nature of the decision focuses attention on aspects of the outcome that will not be salient when it is actually experienced; 3) when choices are made on the basis of flawed evaluations of past experiences; and 4) when people forecast their future adjustment to new life circumstances.

 

 

Kahneman, D., &Thaler, R. H. (2006). Anomalies: Utility maximization and experienced utility. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 221-234.

DOI: 10.1257/089533006776526076

 

Tags: Utility
Previous Post

Zettelmeyer, F., Morton, F. S., &Silva-Risso, J. (2006). How the Internet lowers prices: Evidence from matched survey and automobile transaction data.

Next Post

Veenhoven, R. (1999). Quality-of-life in individualistic society. Social indicators research, 48(2), 159-188.

Related Posts

Mobile Series
이미지

Mobile Series

7월 1, 2022
30
7월
시

7월

7월 1, 2022
20
Scotland IV
이미지

Scotland IV

7월 1, 2022
10
Next Post

Veenhoven, R. (1999). Quality-of-life in individualistic society. Social indicators research, 48(2), 159-188.

카테고리

  • 명언
  • 언론자료
  • 웹사이트
  • 도서
  • 미디어
  • 연구논문
  • 행복연구센터 발간자료
  • 보고서

인기콘텐츠

Vol.72 [행복달력] JUL Happiness Calendar

Vol.72 [행복달력] JUL Happiness Calendar

7월 1, 2022
256
Mobile Series

Mobile Series

7월 1, 2022
30
[관점바꾸기] 변화 능력에 대한 성장 마인드셋 개발

[관점바꾸기] 변화 능력에 대한 성장 마인드셋 개발

7월 1, 2022
50

추천링크

  • 행복연구센터
  • 행복DB
  • 행복스토리
  • 뉴스레터
  • 행복교육
  • H드라이브
서울대학교 행복연구센터

이용약관| 개인정보 취급방침
08826 서울특별시 관악구 관악로 1 서울대학교 220동 643호 TEL: 02-880-6391 FAX: 02-877-6391 Email: happiness@snu.ac.kr
Copyright@2016 Center for Happiness Studies. All rights reserved.

No Result
View All Result
  • 행복연구센터
  • 행복DB
  • 행복스토리
  • 뉴스레터
  • 행복교육
  • H드라이브
  • 로그인

이용약관| 개인정보 취급방침
08826 서울특별시 관악구 관악로 1 서울대학교 220동 643호 TEL: 02-880-6391 FAX: 02-877-6391 Email: happiness@snu.ac.kr
Copyright@2016 Center for Happiness Studies. All rights reserved.

로그인

비밀번호 찾기 회원가입

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In