Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Revisiting mental accounting classic paradigms: Replication Registered Report of the problems reviewed in Thaler (1999)
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Revisiting mental accounting classic paradigms: Replication Registered Report of the problems reviewed in Thaler (1999)
Do you wish to request the book?
Revisiting mental accounting classic paradigms: Replication Registered Report of the problems reviewed in Thaler (1999)
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Revisiting mental accounting classic paradigms: Replication Registered Report of the problems reviewed in Thaler (1999)
2025
Overview
Mental accounting, the internal categorization system individuals adopt to manage their financial activities, may result in suboptimal decisions or decision-making not aligned with one’s own goals. In a Registered Report with an online US sample recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk using CloudResearch, we conducted a replication of 17 classic problems reviewed in Thaler 1999 J. Behav. Decis. Mak.12, 183–206. (doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199909)12:33.0.CO;2-F) (N = approx. 500 per problem; overall: N = 1007). We concluded a mostly successful replication: out of the 17 problems, we found empirical support for 11, mixed empirical support for three and no empirical support for three. Extending the replication, we provided an initial test of four untested predictions described in Thaler 1999 J. Behav. Decis. Mak.12, 183–206. (doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199909)12:33.0.CO;2-F), of which we found empirical support for two, mixed support for one and no support for one. Materials, data, and analysis code are available on: https://osf.io/v7fbj/. This Registered Report has been officially endorsed by Peer Community in Registered Reports: https://doi.org/10.24072/pci.rr.100375.
Publisher
The Royal Society
