Editing Daniel Kahneman (section)

=== Variants of utility ===
Economists distinguish experienced utility—in the sense of [[Jeremy Bentham]] and [[utilitarianism]]—from decision utility, which is the utility explained by and derived from choices.<ref name=":2">{{cite book |last1=Kahneman |first1=Daniel |title=Thinking, Fast and Slow |date=2011 |publisher=Farrar, Straus & Giroux |isbn=9780374533557}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{Cite journal |last1=Kahneman |first1=D. |last2=Wakker |first2=P. P. |last3=Sarin |first3=R. |date=May 1, 1997 |title=Back to Bentham? Explorations of Experienced Utility |url=https://doi.org/10.1162/003355397555235 |journal=The Quarterly Journal of Economics |volume=112 |issue=2 |pages=375–406 |doi=10.1162/003355397555235 |hdl=1765/23011 |issn=0033-5533|hdl-access=free }}</ref> The experienced utility of an episode is formalized as the temporal integration of momentary utility.<ref name=":3" />

Kahneman further distinguished the expected utility from both remembered and predicted utility. Predicted utility (better known as [[affective forecasting]])<ref>{{Citation |last1=Wilson |first1=Timothy D |title=Affective Forecasting |date=2003 |pages=345–411 |url=https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(03)01006-2 |access-date=March 13, 2024 |publisher=Elsevier |doi=10.1016/s0065-2601(03)01006-2 |last2=Gilbert |first2=Daniel T|series=Advances in Experimental Social Psychology |volume=35 |isbn=978-0-12-015235-3 }}</ref> is the predicted experienced utility for a future experience.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Kahneman |first1=Daniel |last2=Snell |first2=Jackie |date=July 1992 |title=Predicting a changing taste: Do people know what they will like? |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.3960050304 |journal=Journal of Behavioral Decision Making |language=en |volume=5 |issue=3 |pages=187–200 |doi=10.1002/bdm.3960050304 |issn=0894-3257 |access-date=March 13, 2024 |archive-date=March 13, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240313164704/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.3960050304 |url-status=live }}</ref> Remembered utility is the evaluation of a past experience.<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":2" /> The essential finding of many experiments is that memories of experienced utility are systematically inaccurate. Furthermore, the remembered evaluation of past episodes (remembered utility) is the best predictor of subsequent decision utility.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Fredrickson |first1=Barbara L. |last2=Kahneman |first2=Daniel |date=1993 |title=Duration neglect in retrospective evaluations of affective episodes |url=https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.45 |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=65 |issue=1 |pages=45–55 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.45 |pmid=8355141 |s2cid=10576590 |issn=1939-1315 |access-date=March 13, 2024 |archive-date=March 27, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240327184532/https://scholar.google.com/scholar_casa?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpsycnet.apa.org%2FdoiLanding%3Fdoi%3D10.1037%2F0022-3514.65.1.45%26 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Kahneman |first1=Daniel |last2=Fredrickson |first2=Barbara L. |last3=Schreiber |first3=Charles A. |last4=Redelmeier |first4=Donald A. |date=November 1993 |title=When More Pain Is Preferred to Less: Adding a Better End |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00589.x |journal=Psychological Science |language=en |volume=4 |issue=6 |pages=401–405 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00589.x |s2cid=8032668 |issn=0956-7976 |access-date=March 13, 2024 |archive-date=March 26, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240326045404/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00589.x |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Redelmeier |first1=Donald A |last2=Kahneman |first2=Daniel |date=July 1996 |title=Patients' memories of painful medical treatments: real-time and retrospective evaluations of two minimally invasive procedures |url=https://journals.lww.com/00006396-199607000-00002 |journal=Pain |volume=66 |issue=1 |pages=3–8 |doi=10.1016/0304-3959(96)02994-6 |pmid=8857625 |s2cid=1522819 |issn=0304-3959 |access-date=March 13, 2024 |archive-date=March 27, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240327184531/https://journals.lww.com/pain/abstract/1996/07000/patients__memories_of_painful_medical_treatments_.2.aspx |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=":3" />

One of the cognitive biases of remembered utility is called the [[peak–end rule]]. It affects how people remember the pleasantness or unpleasantness of experiences. It states that a person's overall impression of past events is determined, for the most part, not by the total pleasure and suffering it contained, but by how it felt at its peak and at its end.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Do |first1=Amy M. |last2=Rupert |first2=Alexander V. |last3=Wolford |first3=George |date=February 1, 2008 |title=Evaluations of pleasurable experiences: The peak–end rule |journal=Psychonomic Bulletin & Review |language=en |volume=15 |issue=1 |pages=96–98 |doi=10.3758/PBR.15.1.96 |issn=1531-5320 |pmid=18605486 |doi-access=free}}</ref> For example, the memory of a painful colonoscopy is improved if the examination is extended by three minutes in which the scope is still inside but not moved anymore, resulting in a moderately uncomfortable sensation. This extended colonoscopy, despite involving more pain overall, is remembered less negatively due to the reduced pain at the end. This even increases the likelihood for the patient to return for subsequent procedures.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Redelmeier |first1=Donald A. |last2=Katz |first2=Joel |last3=Kahneman |first3=Daniel |date=July 2003 |title=Memories of colonoscopy: a randomized trial |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12855328/ |journal=Pain |volume=104 |issue=1–2 |pages=187–194 |doi=10.1016/s0304-3959(03)00003-4 |issn=0304-3959 |pmid=12855328 |s2cid=206055276 |hdl-access=free |hdl=10315/7959 |access-date=February 23, 2021 |archive-date=April 14, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210414040902/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12855328/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

==== Happiness and life satisfaction ====
The analysis of the experienced utility of short episodes readily extends to the broader notion of happiness. This connection led Kahneman, together with [[Ed Diener]] and [[Norbert Schwarz]] to organize a workshop, which yielded a book that covered a range of topics in hedonic psychology, which they defined as "the study of what makes experiences and life pleasant or unpleasant.<ref name=":4">{{Cite book |title=Well-being: the foundations of hedonic psychology |date=1999 |publisher=Russell Sage Foundation |isbn=9780871544247 |editor-last=Kahneman |editor-first=Daniel |editor-last2=Diener |editor-first2=Ed |editor-last3=Schwarz |editor-first3=Norbert}}</ref> It is concerned with feelings of pleasure and pain, of interest and boredom, of joy and sorrow, and of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. It is also concerned with the whole range of circumstances, from the biological to the societal, that occasion suffering and enjoyment.<ref name=":4" />

Most studies of well-being use retrospective questions such as "How happy are you these days?". A smaller number of studies use experience sampling, in which people are probed at random times during the day, and asked to rate their experience of the present moment. Much later (source TED talk) Kahneman described this distinction in terms of two selves: the experiencing self, which is aware of pleasure and pain as they are happening, and the remembering self, which shows the aggregate pleasure and pain over an extended period of time.<ref>{{Citation |last=Kahneman |first=Daniel |title=The riddle of experience vs. memory |date=March 1, 2010 |url=https://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_kahneman_the_riddle_of_experience_vs_memory |access-date=March 13, 2024 |archive-date=November 4, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111104150221/http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/daniel_kahneman_the_riddle_of_experience_vs_memory.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

Kahneman initially believed that the happiness of the experiencing self is the true measure of well-being. Around 2000, he assembled a team consisting of [[Alan Krueger]], David Schkade, Norbert Schwarz and Arthur Stone. The mission of the team was to create a measure of experienced happiness that economists could take seriously. As a more practical substitute to the experience sampling techniques of the time, the team developed The Day-Reconstruction Method, in which participants described the day as a sequence of episodes, and rated the experience on several affective dimensions.<ref name=":6">{{Cite journal |last1=Stone |first1=Arthur A. |last2=Schwartz |first2=Joseph E. |last3=Schkade |first3=David |last4=Schwarz |first4=Norbert |last5=Krueger |first5=Alan |last6=Kahneman |first6=Daniel |date=2006 |title=A population approach to the study of emotion: Diurnal rhythms of a working day examined with the day reconstruction method. |url=https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1528-3542.6.1.139 |journal=Emotion |volume=6 |issue=1 |pages=139–149 |doi=10.1037/1528-3542.6.1.139 |pmid=16637757 |issn=1931-1516 |access-date=March 13, 2024 |archive-date=March 27, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240327184528/https://psycnet.apa.org/api/request/session.refresh |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Kahneman |first1=Daniel |last2=Krueger |first2=Alan B |date=February 1, 2006 |title=Developments in the Measurement of Subjective Well-Being |url=https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/10.1257/089533006776526030 |journal=Journal of Economic Perspectives |volume=20 |issue=1 |pages=3–24 |doi=10.1257/089533006776526030 |issn=0895-3309 |access-date=March 13, 2024 |archive-date=March 27, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240327184354/https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/089533006776526030 |url-status=live }}</ref> Kahneman also participated in the formulation of the well-being module of the Gallup World Poll.<ref>{{Cite web |last= |first= |date=February 10, 2005 |title=Are You Happy Now? |url=https://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/14872/Happy-Now.aspx |access-date=March 13, 2024 |website=Gallup.com |language=en |archive-date=March 13, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240313175106/https://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/14872/Happy-Now.aspx |url-status=live }}</ref> The effort to measure experienced happiness was only partly successful. Measures of affect are routinely included in well-being questionnaires, but the idea that experienced happiness is the better concept did not hold. Kahneman defined happiness in terms of "what I experience here and now",<ref>{{Cite news |title=Why Nobel Prize Winner Daniel Kahneman Gave Up on Happiness |url=https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2018-10-07/ty-article-magazine/.premium/why-nobel-prize-winner-daniel-kahneman-gave-up-on-happiness/0000017f-e650-df5f-a17f-ffde36ed0000 |access-date=January 20, 2023 |publisher=Haaretz |archive-date=January 20, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230120102744/https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2018-10-07/ty-article-magazine/.premium/why-nobel-prize-winner-daniel-kahneman-gave-up-on-happiness/0000017f-e650-df5f-a17f-ffde36ed0000 |url-status=live }}</ref> but says that in reality humans pursue life satisfaction,<ref>{{Citation |title=Daniel Kahneman on wellbeing and how to measure it {{!}} University of Oxford 2022 | date=October 7, 2022 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf8rLu6vKgM |access-date=November 16, 2022 |language=en |archive-date=November 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221116164022/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf8rLu6vKgM |url-status=live }}</ref> which "is connected to a large degree to social yardsticks—achieving goals, meeting expectations".<ref>{{Cite news |last=Mandel |first=Amir |date=October 7, 2018 |title=Why Nobel Prize Winner Daniel Kahneman Gave Up on Happiness |url=https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-why-nobel-prize-winner-daniel-kahneman-gave-up-on-happiness-1.6528513 |newspaper=Haaretz |access-date=December 29, 2018 |archive-date=October 8, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181008135016/https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-why-nobel-prize-winner-daniel-kahneman-gave-up-on-happiness-1.6528513 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Livni |first=Ephrat |date=December 21, 2018 |title=A Nobel Prize-winning psychologist says most people don't really want to be happy |url=https://qz.com/1503207/a-nobel-prize-winning-psychologist-defines-happiness-versus-satisfaction/ |website=Quartz |access-date=December 29, 2018 |archive-date=April 17, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210417094658/https://qz.com/1503207/a-nobel-prize-winning-psychologist-defines-happiness-versus-satisfaction/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://fs.blog/knowledge-podcast/daniel-kahneman/|title=Daniel Kahneman: Putting Your Intuition on Ice [The Knowledge Project Ep. #68]|access-date=October 15, 2021|archive-date=October 26, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211026204816/https://fs.blog/knowledge-podcast/daniel-kahneman/|url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Focusing illusion ====
With David Schkade, Kahneman developed the notion of the [[focusing illusion]] to explain in part the mistakes people make when estimating the effects of different scenarios on their future happiness (also known as [[affective forecasting]], which has been studied extensively by [[Daniel Gilbert (psychologist)|Daniel Gilbert]]).<ref name=":6" /> The "illusion" occurs when people consider the impact of one specific factor on their overall happiness, they tend to greatly exaggerate the importance of that factor, while overlooking the numerous other factors that would in most cases have a greater impact.<ref name=":7">{{cite journal |last1=Schkade |first1=David A. |author1-link= |last2=Kahneman |first2=Daniel |date=May 6, 2016 |title=Does Living in California Make People Happy? A Focusing Illusion in Judgments of Life Satisfaction |url=http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/biases/9_Psychological_Science_340_(Schkade).pdf |journal=Psychological Science |language=en |volume=9 |issue=5 |pages=340–346 |doi=10.1111/1467-9280.00066 |issn=1467-9280 |s2cid=14091201 |access-date=February 26, 2021 |archive-date=January 25, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210125075931/http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/biases/9_Psychological_Science_340_(Schkade).pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> In what has been considered his most famous dictum,<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-04-10 |title=There are three sides to every story |url=https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/there-are-three-sides-to-every-story/ |access-date=2024-04-14 |website=The Spectator Australia |language=en-US}}</ref> Kahneman described the illusion in ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'', writing: “Nothing in life is as important as you think it is when you are thinking about it.”<ref name=":2" />

A good example is provided by Kahneman and Schkade's 1998 paper, "Does living in California make people happy? A focusing illusion in judgments of life satisfaction". In that paper, students in the [[Midwest]] and in [[California]] reported similar levels of life satisfaction, but the Midwesterners thought their Californian peers would be happier. The only distinguishing information the Midwestern students had when making these judgments was the fact that their hypothetical peers lived in California. Thus, they "focused" on this distinction, thereby overestimating the effect of the weather in California on its residents' satisfaction with life.<ref name=":7" />