Cumulative prospect theory, one of the major contributions to behavioral economics to explaining decision-making under uncertainty, is used to analyze two perspectives on punishment for professional misconduct, in one developing and one developed journalistic professional world. Using cumulative prospect theory, this article aims to explore why Romanian journalists show greater support for a liability model, compared to their Swiss counterparts, who favor an answerability model of accountability. To this end, several semi-structured interviews with experts in both countries were conducted. The discussions started from data gathered in a previous survey, called MediaAcT. The cumulative prospect theory of Kahneman and Tversky is based on a framing hypothesis, but has not been used before by media scholars. The approach proves to be fruitful, as it allows for a better understanding of journalists’ attitudes to accountability and responsibility.
AbendL (2014) Denmark’s unprecedented media scandal. A gossip mag takes a page from News of the World’s playbook. Columbia Journalism Review. Available at: http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/danish_media.php
BardoelJd’HaenensL (2004) Media responsibility and accountability: New conceptualizations and practices. Communications29(1): 5–25.
4.
BertrandC-J (2000) Deontologia mijloacelor de comunicare (translation of La déontologie des médias). Iaşi: Institutul European.
5.
Bezahlte Tageszeitungen verlieren an Auflage (2012). Available at: http://www.nzz.ch/ (accessed 23 August 2013).
6.
BonfadelliHKeelGMarrM. (2011) Journalists in Switzerland: Structures and attitudes. Studies in Communication Sciences11(2): 7–26.
7.
ButlerC (2007) Prospect theory and coercive bargaining. The Journal of Conflict Resolution51(2): 227–250.
8.
ComanM (2003) Mass media în România post-comunistă [Mass Media in Post-Communist Romania]. Iași: Polirom.
9.
ComanMRaduRPreoteasaM. (2011) Romania: Twenty years of professionalization in journalism – still counting. In: EberweinTFenglerSLaukE (eds) Mapping Media Accountability-in Europe and beyond. Köln: Herbert von Halem Verlag, pp. 142–154.
10.
CouldryNMadianouMPinchevskiA (2013) Ethics of Media. Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
11.
FenglerSRuss-MohlS (2008) The crumbling hidden wall: Towards an economic theory of journalism. Kyklos61(4): 520–542.
12.
FenglerSRuss-MohlS (2014) The (Behavioral) economics of media accountability. In: FenglerSEberweinTMazzoleniG. (eds) Journalists and Media Accountability: An International Study of News People in the Digital Age. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 217–230.
13.
FenglerSEberweinTMazzoleniG. (eds) (2014) Journalists and Media Accountability: An International Study of News People in the Digital Age. New York: Peter Lang.
14.
GrossP (1996) Mass Media in Revolution and National Development: The Romanian Laboratory. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
15.
GuestGBunceAJohnsonL (2006) How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods18(1): 59–82.
16.
HallinDCManciniP (2004) Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
HauflerV (2001) A Public Role for the Private Sector: Industry Self-Regulation in a Global Economy. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
JakubowiczK (2003) Bringing public service broadcasting to account. In: LoweGFHujanenT (eds) Broadcasting and Convergence: New Articulations of the Public Service Remit. Göteborg: Nordicom, pp. 147–165.
20.
JempsonM (2013) A royal tussle between press freedom and state-sanctioned self-regulation. MediaACT final research report. Available at: http://www.mediaact.eu/outcomes.html
21.
KahnemanD (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Macmillan.
22.
KeelG (2011) Journalisten in der Schweiz: Eine Berufsfeldstudie im Zeitverlauf. Konstanz: UVK.
23.
KrusemarkEACampbellWKClementzBA (2008) Attributions, deception, and event related potentials: An investigation of the self-serving bias. Psychophysiology45: 511–515.
McCulloughMECarterEC (2011) Waiting, tolerating, and cooperating: Did religion evolve to prop up humans’ self-control abilities? In: VohsKDBaumeisterRF (eds) Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 422–440.
26.
McDermottR (2004) Prospect theory in political science: Gains and losses from the first decade. Political Psychology25(2): 289–312.
27.
McQuailD (2003) Media Accountability and Freedom of Publication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28.
McQuailD (2010) Mass Communication Theory, 6th edn.London: SAGE.
29.
MetykováMCísařováLW (2009) Changing journalistic practices in Eastern Europe: The cases of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia. Journalism10(5): 719–736.
30.
MiroiuMBlebeaG (2001) Introducere în etica profesională [Introduction to professional ethics]. Bucureşti: Editura Trei.
31.
RaduRN (2011) Instituţii culturale în tranziţie [Cultural Institutions in Transition]. Bucureşti: Nemira.
32.
RaduRNPopaDA (2014) Media accountability and journalism education. In: FenglerSEberweinTMazzoleniG. (eds) Journalists and Media Accountability: An International Study of News People in the Digital Age. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 249–264.
33.
RossiPMeierWA (2012) Civil society and media governance: A participatory approach. In: JustNPuppisM (eds) Trends in Communication Policy Research: New Theories, Methods and Subjects. Bristol: Intellect Books, pp. 381–401.
34.
ScocciaD (2013) In defense of ‘Pure’ legal moralism. Criminal Law and Philosophy7(3): 513–530.
35.
SoloveDJ (2006) A taxonomy of privacy. University of Pennsylvania Law Review154: 477–564.
36.
StokesDE (1963) Spatial models of party competition. The American Political Science Review57: 368–377.
