Abstract
Loss aversion can occur in riskless and risky choices. We present novel evidence on both in a non-student sample (660 randomly selected customers of a car manufacturer). We measure loss aversion in riskless choice in endowment effect experiments within and between subjects and find similar levels of average loss aversion in both. The subjects of the within study also participate in a simple lottery choice task which arguably measures loss aversion in risky choices. We find substantial heterogeneity in both measures of loss aversion. Loss aversion in riskless choice and loss aversion in risky choice are strongly positively correlated, but on average riskless loss aversion is higher than risky loss aversion. We find that in both choice tasks, loss aversion increases in age, income, and wealth, and decreases in education. Our results provide novel supportive input to the debate about the reality of loss aversion.
Highlights
Loss aversion—the psychological propensity that losses loom larger than equalsized gains relative to a reference point—can occur in riskless and in risky choices, as argued in two seminal papers by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Tversky & Kahneman, 1991)
We investigated loss aversion in riskless and risky choices in a large non-student sample
Our results show evidence of loss aversion, both in riskless and risky choices. 82% of people were loss averse in riskless choice; 71% of people displayed loss aversion in risky choice
Summary
Loss aversion—the psychological propensity that losses loom larger than equalsized gains relative to a reference point—can occur in riskless and in risky choices, as argued in two seminal papers by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Tversky & Kahneman, 1991). The gap between WTA and WTP has been interpreted as evidence for loss aversion in riskless choice (e.g., Rozin & Royzman, 2001; Tversky & Kahneman, 1991). We do these experiments in two versions: between subjects (Study 1; n = 300) and within subjects (Study 2; n = 360). Result 3 reports estimates of individual-level loss aversion (kriskless) based on an individual’s WTA/WTP ratio. Representative for the population at large, but we can answer how in our sample socio-demographic variables affect loss aversion both in riskless and in risky choices. This paper, and Mrkva et al (2020), provide strong evidence for the empirical relevance of loss aversion, while acknowledging that loss aversion has important moderators
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
