Measure Of Loss Aversion Research Articles

Acceptance of mixed gambles is sensitive to the range of gains and losses experienced, and estimates of lambda (λ) are not a reliable measure of loss aversion: Reply to André and de Langhe (2020).

Walasek and Stewart (2015) demonstrated that loss aversion estimated from fitting accept–reject choice data from a set of 50–50 gambles can be made to disappear or even reverse by manipulating the range of gains and losses experienced in different conditions. André and de Langhe (2020) critique this conclusion because in estimating loss aversion on different choice sets, Walasek and Stewart (2015) have violated measurement invariance. They show, and we agree, that when loss aversion is estimated on the choices common to all conditions, there is no difference in prospect theory’s λ parameter. But there are two problems here. First, while there are no differences in λs across conditions, there are very large differences in the proportion of the common gambles that are accepted, which André and de Langhe chose not to report. These choice proportion differences are consistent with decision by sampling (but are inconsistent with prospect theory or any of the alternative mechanisms proposed by André & de Langhe, 2020). Second, we demonstrate a much more general problem related to the issue of measurement invariance: that λ estimated from the accept–reject choices is extremely unreliable and does not generalize even across random splits within large, balanced choice sets. It is therefore not possible to determine whether differences in choice proportions are due to loss aversion or to a bias in accepting or rejecting mixed gambles. We conclude that context has large effects on the acceptance of mixed gambles and that it is futile to estimate λ from accept–reject choices.

Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices

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.

Loss Aversion and Health Behaviors: Results from Two Incentivized Economic Experiments.

Experimental research in health economics has analyzed the effects of economic preference parameters such as risk attitude and time preference on the probability of adopting risky health behaviors. However, the existing evidence is mixed and previous research often fails to include controls for other determinants of health behaviors such as personality traits. The aim of this research is to analyze the relationships between an incentivized measure of loss aversion and three health behaviors: smoking, binge drinking, and engaging in physical activity. Loss aversion is a preference measure that has been derived from prospect theory as an alternative approach to analyze decision-making under risk, such as the decision to invest in health capital, and has never been used in an analysis of the determinants of health behaviors before. Using two experimental samples of college students in the Republic of Korea and the United States of America, and controlling for Big Five personality traits and a host of individual-level control variables, there are no statistically significant relationships between loss aversion and the three aforementioned health behaviors, but relationships for Big Five conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. A candidate explanation might be lack of domain independence for loss aversion. Differences between the Korean and the US samples indicate the possibility of intercultural differences.

Top Down or Bottom Up? Disentangling the Channels of Attention in Risky Choice

Economists have become increasingly interested in using attention to explain behavioral patterns both on the micro and macro level. This has resulted in several disparate theoretical approaches. Some, like rational inattention, assume a “top-down” model of executive optimization. Others, like salience theory, assume a “bottom-up” influence where attention is driven by contextual factors. This distinction is fundamental for the economic implications of attention, but so far there is little understanding of their relative importance. We propose a multi-attribute random utility model that unifies prior theoretical approaches by distinguishing between the impact of top-down and bottom-up attention. We accomplish this by separating agent-specific and decision-specific variation in attention and verify our framework in an eye-tracking experiment on risky choice. We find that both top-down and bottom-up attention are connected to important choice variables: both are associated with the weighting of the attributes of choice options, while top-down attention is additionally associated with measures of loss aversion. We discuss the insights regarding the nature of attention and its role in economic theory.

Cost-Sharing or Rebate: The Impact of Health Insurance Design on Reducing Inefficient Care

This paper investigates how the design of health insurance plans impacts individuals' treatment decisions. We vary the design between cost-sharing and rebates. We derive several hypotheses how the design of the health insurance plan affects behavior. In a laboratory experiment, we find that rebates are more effective in containing cost as individuals request significantly less inefficient low-value care under rebates than under cost-sharing. We link individual decisions to a direct measure of loss aversion but find no evidence that loss aversion influences utilization rates. Our results suggest that relative thinking and the difficulty to understand the dynamic incentive structure drive the design effect.

Preference-based evolutionary multi-objective optimization for portfolio selection: a new credibilistic model under investor preferences

We propose a new credibility portfolio selection model, in which a measure of loss aversion is introduced as an objective function, joint to the expected value of the returns and the below-mean absolute semi-deviation as a risk measure. The uncertainty of the future returns is directly approximated using the historical returns on the portfolios, so the uncertain return on a given portfolio is modeled as an LR-power fuzzy variable. Quantifying the uncertainty by means of a credibility distribution allows us to measure the investors’ loss aversion as the credibility of achieving a non-positive return, which is better perceived by investors than other measures of risk. Furthermore, we analyze the relationships between the three objective functions, showing that the risk measure and the loss aversion function are practically uncorrelated. Thus, the information provided by these criteria do not overlap each other. In order to generate several non-dominated portfolios taking into account the investor’s preferences and that the problem is non-linear and non-convex, we apply up to three preference-based EMO algorithms. These algorithms allow to approximate a part of the Pareto optimal front called region of interest. We analyze three investor profiles taking into account their loss-adverse attitudes: conservative, cautious and aggressive. A computational study is performed with data of the Spanish stock market, showing the important role played by the loss aversion function to generate a diversified set of non-dominated portfolios fitting the expectations of each investor.

Loss Aversion as a Potential Factor in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy.

.The sunk-cost fallacy (SCF) occurs when an individual makes an investment with a low probability of a payoff because an earlier investment was made. The investments may be time, effort, or money. Previous researchers showed that larger prior investments were more likely to lead to the SCF than lower investments were, though little research has been focused on comparing investment types. There are several theories of the SCF, but few have implicated loss aversion, the higher sensitivity to losses than to gains, as a potential factor. We studied the differential effects of investment amount and type on the occurrence of the SCF and explored loss aversion as a potential explanation of these differences. There were 168 participants, who completed a sunk-cost task as well as an endowment-effect task, which was a measure of loss aversion. A 3 3 mixed-design ANCOVA was used in which the SCF score was the dependent variable and loss-aversion scores were used as a covariate. The SCF occurred most often with money, less with time, and least with effort. Loss aversion displayed a weak negative relation to the SCF.

The Effects of Risk Preference and Loss Aversion on Individual Behavior under Bonus, Penalty, and Combined Contract Frames

ABSTRACT: This study examines the effects of risk preference and loss aversion on individual responses to differently framed, yet economically equivalent, incentive contracts. We extend prior research by examining contracts with combinations of bonus, penalty, and clawback incentives. Contracts framed as a combination of bonus and penalty incentives, especially those framed as a clawback, are less attractive to participants than contracts with bonus- or penalty-only incentives. Further, research suggests that individuals' contract preferences are due primarily to loss aversion. We test this conjecture with a new measure of loss aversion. Results indicate that our measure of loss aversion is well calibrated to encompass variation in loss aversion. In addition, participants' loss preferences explain a significant portion of the differences in observed behavior. Importantly, this relation is less significant for clawback contracts, indicating that other preferences may be driving individuals' strong reactions to these contract frames.

Measurement-induced focusing and the magnitude of loss aversion: The difference between comparing gains to losses and losses to gains

AbstractResearch has identified loss aversion as a strong and robust phenomenon, but has also revealed some moderators affecting the magnitude of its effect on decision making. In the current article, we draw attention to the fact that even the measurement of loss aversion itself may affect its magnitude by inducing a focus on either losses or gains. In three studies, we provide empirical evidence for such a measurement-induced focus. In all studies we used coin-toss gambles—in which there is a 50/50 chance to win or to lose—to assess gain/loss ratios as a measure of loss aversion. Participants either filled out the loss side or the gain side of this gain/loss ratio. The studies consistently showed that—using within- and between-subject designs and anticipated and real coin-toss gambles—the strength of loss aversion depended on the measurement format (fill-in-the-loss versus fill-in-the-gain); filling in the loss side increased loss aversion. Moreover, loss aversion was more affected by the stakes of the gamble in the fill-in-the-loss format than in the fill-in-the-gain format.

A Simple Method of Elicitation of Preferences under Risk

This study estimates the utility of lotteries and the degree of loss aversion applying the parametric method proposed by \citet{abde08} to preferences observed in a computer-based experiment conducted at Universidadede Bras\'{i}lia. Most participants displayed risk aversion for gain prospects and risk propensity for loss prospects. Real incentives for loss prospects led to a greater concavity of the utility function than the one estimated by \citet{abde08}. We observed reversals in behavior toward risk in the presence of a certain gain or loss in the prospect. Moreover, three different measures of loss aversion are discussed and, when applied to the experimental data, they were more appropriate with its theoretical definition than the most widely used measure of \citet{tver92}

The ability to process emotional information predicts loss aversion

On the basis of previous research it was hypothesized that alexithymia is associated with a higher tolerance for losses. This hypothesis is extended to explore whether the putative link between loss aversion and alexithymia remains once traits associated with risk taking (sensation seeking) and broad based personality traits (the Big 5) are controlled. Participants (N=260) completed indices of alexithymia, sensation seeking and the Big 5 and both a riskless (endowment effect) and risky (lottery task) measure of loss aversion. It was found that the higher the alexithymia score the lower the loss aversion for both riskless and risky decisions even when sex, sensation seeking and the Big 5 are taken into account. The implications for this finding are discussed in the light of a neurological explanation of the relationship between alexithymia and loss aversion.

The Effects of Risk Preference and Loss Aversion on Individual Behavior Under Bonus, Penalty, and Combined Contract Frames

This study examines the effects of risk preference and loss aversion on individual responses to differently framed, yet economically equivalent, incentive contracts. We extend prior research by examining contracts with combinations of bonus, penalty, and clawback incentives. Contracts framed as a combination of bonus and penalty incentives, especially those framed as a clawback, are less attractive to participants than contracts with bonus or penalty-only incentives. Further, research suggests that individuals’ contract preferences are due primarily to loss aversion. We test this conjecture with a new measure of loss aversion. Results indicate that our measure of loss aversion is well calibrated to encompass variation in loss aversion. In addition, participants’ loss preferences explain a significant portion of the differences in observed behavior. Importantly, this relation is less significant for clawback contracts indicating that other preferences may be driving individuals’ strong reactions to these contract frames.

Individual-Level Loss Aversion in Riskless and Risky Choices

Loss aversion can occur in riskless and risky choices. Yet, there is no evidence whether people who are loss averse in riskless choices are also loss averse in risky choices. We measure individual-level loss aversion in riskless choices in an endowment effect experiment by eliciting both WTA and WTP from each of our 360 subjects (randomly selected customers of a car manufacturer). All subjects 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 the riskless choice task and loss aversion in the risky choice task are highly significantly and strongly positively correlated. We find that in both choice tasks loss aversion increases in age, income, and wealth, and decreases in education.