GLIMS Journal of Management Review
and Transformation
issue front

Gurumurthy Kalyanaram1

First Published 2 Mar 2022.
Article Information Volume 1, Issue 1 March 2022
Corresponding Author:

Gurumurthy Kalyanaram, City University of New York, New York, NY 10017, USA.

1 City University of New York, New York, NY, USA

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( which permits non-Commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed.


In this article, we present three important behavioral/cognitive theories: Prospect theory, mental accounting, and nudge theory. We also briefly present applications of these theories to consumer, financial, and product markets, and to public policy decisions.

Finally, we discuss the application of these three theories to management of the current pandemic (COVID-19) situation, including strategizing and communicating productively. Specifically, we examine the framing of the non-pharmacological mandates, the applicable models for closing and re-opening decisions, and methods to increase the odds of diffusion of accurate information.

There are three useful insights. One, we find that framing matters in increasing the effectiveness of the mandates: exposure to gain frames yielded more support. Two, instead of closing, opening, and closing again, it is better to keep the economy (and schools/colleges) closed for a longer time period so that it does not have to be closed again. Three, an accuracy nudge increases the flow of accurate information and attenuates the false information.


COVID-19, prospect theory, mental accounting, nudge, loss aversion, reference point, social intervention


Barberis, N., & Huang, M. (2001). Mental accounting, loss aversion, and individual stock returns. Journal of Finance, 56(4), 1247–1292.

Barberis, N., & Huang, M. (2008). Stocks as lotteries: The implications of probability weighting for security prices. American Economic Review, 98(5), 2066-2100.

Barberis, N. C. (2013). Thirty years of prospect theory in economics: A review and assessment. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1), 173–196.

Benartzi, S., & Thaler, R. (1995). Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(1), 73–92.

Bokhari, S., & Geltner, D. (2010). Loss aversion and anchoring in commercial real estate pricing: Empirical evidence and price index implications. Real Estate Economics, 39(4), 635–670.

Briesch, R. A., Krishnamurthi, L., Mazumdar, T., & Raj, S. P. (1997). A comparative analysis of reference price models. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(2), 202–214.

Bronnenberg, B. J., & Wathieu, L. (1996). Asymmetric promotion effects and brand positioning. Marketing Science, 15(4), 379–394.

Dayaratna, K., & Kannan, P. K. (2012). A mathematical reformulation of the reference price.Marketing Letters, 23(3), 839–849.

Delle Site, P., & Filippi, F. (2011). Stochastic user equilibrium and value-of-time analysis with reference-dependent route choice. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 11(2), 194–218.

Einhorn, H. J. (1970). The use of nonlinear, noncompensatory models in decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 73(3), 221–230.

Engelhardt, G. V. (2001). Nominal loss aversion, housing equity constraints, and household mobility: Evidence from the United States. Journal of Urban Economics, 53(1), 171–195.

Erdem, T., Mayhew, G., & Sun, B. (2001). Understanding reference-price shoppers: A within and cross-category analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(4), 445–457.

Fama, E. F., Fisher, L., Jensen, M. C., & Roll, R. (1969). The adjustment of stock prices to new information. International Economic Review, 10(1), 1–21.

Fryer, R. G., Levitt, S. D., List, J., & Sadoff, S. (2012). Enhancing the efficacy of teacher incentives through loss aversion: A field experiment (NBER Working Paper No. 18237, JEL No. J24).

Genesove, D., & Mayer, C. (2001). Loss aversion and seller behavior: Evidence from the housing market. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(4), 1233–1260.

Grüne, L., & Semmler, W. (2008). Asset pricing with loss aversion. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 32(10), 3253–3274.

Habib, K. M. N., & Miller, E. J. (2009). Modeling individuals’ frequency and time allocation behavior for shopping activities considering household-level random effects. Transportation Research Record, 1985(1), 78–87.

Haigh, M. S., & List, J. A. (2005). Do professional traders exhibit myopic loss aversion An experimental analysis. Journal of Finance, 60(1), 523–534.

Hameleers, M. (2021). Prospect theory in times of a pandemic: The effects of gain versus loss framing on risky choices and emotional responses during the 2020 coronavirus outbreak – evidence from the US and the Netherlands. Mass Communication and Society.

Han, S., Gupta, S., & Lehmann, D. R. (2001). Consumer price sensitivity and price thresholds. Journal of Retailing, 77(4), 435–456.

Hauser, J. R., Ding, M., & Gaskin, S. P. (2009, March 23–27). Non-compensatory (and compensatory) models of consideration-set decisions [Conference paper], Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference, Delray Beach, FL.

Helson, H. (1964). Adaptation level theory. Harper and Row.

Hess, S., & Rose, J. M. (2009). Should reference alternatives in pivot design SC surveys be treated differently Environmental and Resource Economics, 42, 297–317.

Hess, S., Stathopoulos, A., & Daly, A. (2012). Allowing for heterogeneous decision rules in discrete choice models: An approach and four case studies. Transportation, 39(3), 565–591.

Hu, G., Sivakumar, A., & Polak, J. W. (2012). Modelling travellers’ risky choice in a revealed preference context: A comparison of EUT and non-EUT approaches. Transportation, 39, 825–841.

Johnson, E. J., & Meyer, R. J. (1995). Empirical generalizations in the modeling of consumer choice. Marketing Science, 14(3), G180–G189.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 430–454.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.

Kalyanaram, G., & Little, J. D. C. (1989). A price response model developed from perceptual theories. MIT Sloan School Working Paper # 3038-89, MIT Marketing Center Working Paper 89-5.–21668377.pdf

Kalyanaram, G., & Little, J. D. C. (1994). An empirical analysis of latitude of price acceptance in consumer package goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 408–418.

Kalyanaram, G., & Winer, R. S. (1995). Empirical generalizations from reference price research. Marketing Science, 14(3), G161–G169.

Kalyanaram, G., & Muralidharan, S. (2011). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, 5(4), 349–352.

Kalyanaram, G., & Mukherjee, A. (2020). The bass model: A parsimonious and accurate approach to forecasting mortality caused by Covid-19. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, 14(3), 349–360.–6123

Kardes, F. R., Posavac, S., & Cronley, M. (2004). Consumer inference: A review of processes, bases, and judgment contexts. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(3), 230–256.

Kivetz, R., Netzer, O., & Srinivasan, V. (2004). Extending compromise effect models to complex buying situations and other context effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(3), 237–257.

Kopalle, P. K., Sun, Y., Neslin, S. A., & Swaminathan, V. (2012a). The joint sales impact of frequency reward and customer tier components of loyalty programs. Marketing Science, 31(2), 216–235.

Kopalle, P. K., Kannan, P. K., Boldt, L. B., & Arora, N. (2012b). The impact of household level heterogeneity in reference price effects on optimal retailer pricing policies. Journal of Retailing, 88(1), 102–114.

Kwak, K. (2007). Price response in multiple item choice: Spillover effects of reference price [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Iowa.

Masiero, L., & Hensher, D. A. (2010). Analyzing loss aversion and diminishing sensitivity in a freight transport stated choice experiment. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 44(5), 349–358.

Mazumdar, T., & Papatla, P. (2000). An investigation of reference price segments. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 246–258.

Meyer, J., & Cramon-Taubadel, S. v. (2004). Asymmetric price transmission: A survey. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 55(3), 581–611.

Natarajan, V., Kalyanaram, G., & Munch, J. (2010). Asymmetric market reaction to new product announcements: An exploratory study. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 14(2), 1–11.

Nekmat, E. (2020). Nudge effect of fact-check alerts: Source influence and media skepticism on sharing of news misinformation in social media. Social Media + Society, 6(1), 1–14.

Neumann, N., & Bockenholt, U. (2014). A meta-analysis of loss aversion in product choice. Journal of Retailing, 90(2), 182–197.

Neumann, N., Sinha, A., & Bockenholt, U. (2012). Is extremeness aversion driven by loss aversion Contrasting reference point models of durable product choice. Advances in Consumer Research, 40, 915–196

Newman, E., & Newman, S. (2007). Reference-dependent preferences and loss aversion: A discrete choice experiment in the health-care sector. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(3), 162–173.

Nicolau, J. L. (2011). Testing prospect theory in airline demand. Journal of Air Transport Management, 17(4), 241–243.

Pauwels, K. H., Srinivasan, S., & Franses, P. H. (2007). When do price thresholds matter in retail categories Marketing Science, 26(1), 83–100.

Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J., & Rand, D. (2020). Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy nudge intervention. Psychological Science, 31(7), 770–780.

Rose, J. M., & Masiero, L. (2010). A comparison of the impacts of aspects of prospect theory on WTP/WTA estimated in preference and WTP/WTA space. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 10(4), 330–346.

Saini, G., Sahay, A., & Kalyanaram, G. (2018). An empirical study of latitude of quantity acceptance (LQA) in an emerging economy: India. Journal of Global Marketing, 31(2), 1–17.

Sanders, M., Stockdale, E., Hume, S., & John, P. (2020). Loss aversion fails to replicate in the coronavirus pandemic: Evidence from an online experiment. Economics Letters, 99, 109433.

Sangkil, M., Russell, G. J., & Duvvuri , S. D. (2006). Profiling the reference price consumer. Journal of Retailing, 82(1), 1–11.

Sherif, M., Taub, D., & Hovland, C. I. (1958). Assimilation and contrast effects of anchoring stimuli on judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55(2), 150–155.

Simon, H. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.

Sunstein, C. (2014). Nudging: A very short guide. Journal of Consumer Policy, 37(4), 583–588.

Terui, N., & Dahana, W. D. (2006a). Estimating heterogeneous price thresholds. Marketing Science, 25(4), 384–391.

Terui, N., & Dahana, W. D. (2006b). Price customization using price thresholds estimated from scanner panel data. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 20(3–4), 58–70.

Thaler, R. H. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), 199–214.

Thaler, R. H. (1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(3), 183–206.<183::AID-BDM318>3.0.CO;2-F

Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.

Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79(4), 281–299.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.

Walasek, L., Mullett, T. L., & Stewart, N. (2018). A meta-analysis of loss aversion in risky contexts (Working Paper). University of Warwick.

Make a Submission Order a Print Copy