An Experimental Test of Loss Aversion

This paper experimentally investigates a preference condition for loss aversion in the framework of cumulative prospect theory (CPT). We propose the concepts of absolute and relative loss premiums in order to measure the extent of loss aversion and to derive notions of increasing, constant, and decreasing loss aversion. While in only one of the 28 choice situations analyzed loss neutrality and loss seeking can be rejected, about 51% of all choices are loss averse and, due to the large extent of loss aversion revealed by these choices, the average loss premium is positive for most choice situations. Female subjects exhibit both a more frequent occurrence and a larger extent of loss aversion.     

What is Loss Aversion?

A behavioral definition of loss aversion is proposed and its implications for original and cumulative prospect theory are analyzed. Original prospect theory is in agreement with the new loss aversion condition, and there utility is capturing all effects of loss aversion. In cumulative prospect theory loss aversion is captured by both the weighting functions and the utility function. Further, some restrictions apply for the weighting functions involved in the latter model.We are indebted to Michèle Cohen and Peter Wakker for helpful comments. The suggestions of an anonymous referee have improved the presentation of the paper.     

Loss Averse Behavior

A behavioral condition of loss aversion is proposed and tested. Forty-nine students participated in experiments on binary choices among lotteries involving small scale real gains and losses. At the aggregate level, a significant proportion of the choices are in the direction predicted by loss aversion. Individuals can be classified as loss averse (28 participants), gain seeking (12), and unclassified (9). A comparison with risk behavior for binary choices on lotteries involving only gains shows that risk attitudes vary across these domains of lotteries. A gender effect is also observed: proportionally more women are loss averse. In contrast to the predictions of comonotonic independence, the size of common outcomes has systematic influence on choice behavior. JEL Classification: D81, C91     

On Loss Aversion in Bimatrix Games

In this article three different types of loss aversion equilibria in bimatrix games are studied. Loss aversion equilibria are Nash equilibria of games where players are loss averse and where the reference points—points below which they consider payoffs to be losses—are endogenous to the equilibrium calculation. The first type is the fixed point loss aversion equilibrium, introduced in Shalev (2000; Int. J. Game Theory 29(2):269) under the name of ‘myopic loss aversion equilibrium.’ There, the players’ reference points depend on the beliefs about their opponents’ strategies. The second type, the maximin loss aversion equilibrium, differs from the fixed point loss aversion equilibrium in that the reference points are only based on the carriers of the strategies, not on the exact probabilities. In the third type, the safety level loss aversion equilibrium, the reference points depend on the values of the own payoff matrices. Finally, a comparative statics analysis is carried out of all three equilibrium concepts in 2 × 2 bimatrix games. It is established when a player benefits from his opponent falsely believing that he is loss averse.     

Comparative Risk Sensitivity with Reference-Dependent Preferences

Experimental evidence suggests that individuals are risk averse over gains and risk seeking over losses (i.e., they have S-shaped utility functions in an expected utility setting) and that they are loss averse. Furthermore, the evidence leads to a single definition of S-shaped utility, but it has led to several alternative specifications of loss aversion. This paper characterizes the relations more S-shaped than and more loss averse than for a utility function, and in so doing arrives at a new definition of loss aversion based on average instead of marginal utility.     

Risk behavior for gain,loss, and mixed prospects

This study extends experimental tests of (cumulative) prospect theory (PT) over prospects with more than three outcomes and tests second-order stochastic dominance principles (Levy and Levy, Management Science 48:1334–1349, 2002; Baucells and Heukamp, Management Science 52:1409–1423, 2006). It considers choice behavior of people facing prospects of three different types: gain prospects (losing is not possible), loss prospects (gaining is not possible), and mixed prospects (both gaining and losing are possible). The data supports the distinction of risk behavior into these three categories of prospects, Further, probability weighting and diminishing sensitivity of utility as predicted by PT are observed. Loss aversion is, however, less pronounced, except for choices where one prospect is degenerate. The data suggests that the probability of losing may be relevant for loss aversion.     

Do financial professionals behave according to prospect theory? An experimental study

Prospect theory is increasingly used to explain deviations from the traditional paradigm of rational agents. Empirical support for prospect theory comes mainly from laboratory experiments using student samples. It is obviously important to know whether and to what extent this support generalizes to more naturally occurring circumstances. This article explores this question and measures prospect theory for a sample of private bankers and fund managers. We obtained clear support for prospect theory. Our financial professionals behaved according to prospect theory and violated expected utility maximization. They were risk averse for gains and risk seeking for losses and their utility was concave for gains and (slightly) convex for losses. They were also averse to losses, but less so than commonly observed in laboratory studies and assumed in behavioral finance. A substantial minority focused on gains and largely ignored losses, behavior reminiscent of what caused the current financial crisis.     

Normalized measures of concavity and Ross’s strongly more risk averse order

The Arrow-Pratt (A-P) definitions of absolute and relative risk aversion dominate the discussion of risk aversion and defining “more risk averse”. Ross (Econometrica 49:621–663, 1981) notes, however, that being A-P more risk averse is not sufficient for addressing many important comparative static questions. Consequently he introduces “a new and stronger measure for comparing two agents’ attitudes towards risk…”. Ross does not provide a corresponding measure of risk aversion. This paper uses a normalized measure of concavity to characterize the Ross definition of strongly more risk averse on bounded intervals. Other properties and uses of these normalized measures of concavity are also presented.     

Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty

We develop a new version of prospect theory that employs cumulative rather than separable decision weights and extends the theory in several respects. This version, called cumulative prospect theory, applies to uncertain as well as to risky prospects with any number of outcomes, and it allows different weighting functions for gains and for losses. Two principles, diminishing sensitivity and loss aversion, are invoked to explain the characteristic curvature of the value function and the weighting functions. A review of the experimental evidence and the results of a new experiment confirm a distinctive fourfold pattern of risk attitudes: risk aversion for gains and risk seeking for losses of high probability; risk seeking for gains and risk aversion for losses of low probability.This article has benefited from discussions with Colin Camerer, Chew Soo-Hong, David Freedman, and David H. Krantz. We are especially grateful to Peter P. Wakker for his invaluable input and contribution to the axiomatic analysis. We are indebted to Richard Gonzalez and Amy Hayes for running the experiment and analyzing the data. This work was supported by Grants 89-0064 and 88-0206 from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, by Grant SES-9109535 from the National Science Foundation, and by the Sloan Foundation.     

Decreasing absolute risk aversion, prudence and increased downside risk aversion

Downside risk increases have previously been characterized as changes preferred by all decision makers u(x) with u????(x) > 0. For risk averse decision makers, u????(x) > 0 also defines prudence. This paper finds that downside risk increases can also be characterized as changes preferred by all decision makers displaying decreasing absolute risk aversion (DARA) since those changes involve random variables that have equal means. Building on these findings, the paper proposes using ??more decreasingly absolute risk averse?? or ??more prudent?? as alternative definitions of increased downside risk aversion. These alternative definitions generate a transitive ordering, while the existing definition based on a transformation function with a positive third derivative does not. Other properties of the new definitions of increased downside risk aversion are also presented.     

Why does myopia decrease the willingness to invest? Is it myopic loss aversion or myopic loss probability aversion?

For loss averse investors, a sequence of risky investments looks less attractive if it is evaluated myopically—an effect called myopic loss aversion (MLA). The consequences of this effect have been confirmed in several experiments and its robustness is largely undisputed. The effect’s causes, however, have not been thoroughly examined with regard to one important aspect. Due to the construction of the lotteries that were used in the experiments, none of the studies is able to distinguish between MLA and an explanation based on (myopic) loss probability aversion (MLPA). This distinction is important, however, in discussion of the practical relevance and the generalizability of the phenomenon. We designed an experiment that is able to disentangle lottery attractiveness and loss probabilities. Our analysis reveals that mere loss probabilities are not as important in this dynamic context as previous findings in other domains suggest. The results favor the MLA over the MLPA explanation.     

Prospect theory and the “forgotten” fourfold pattern of risk preferences

Markowitz (Journal of Political Economy 60:151–158, 1952) identified a fourfold pattern of risk preferences in outcome magnitude: When outcomes are large, people are risk averse in gains and risk seeking in losses, but risk preferences reverse when the outcomes are small, with people exhibiting risk seeking in gains and risk aversion in losses. This fourfold pattern was not addressed by either version of prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky Econometrica 47:363–391, 1979; Tversky and Kahneman Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5:297–323, 1992). We show how prospect theory can accommodate the pattern by combining an overweighting of low probabilities with a decreasingly elastic value function. We then examine the performance of prospect theory with two decreasingly elastic value functions: Prospect theory performs better, both quantitatively and qualitatively, with a normalized logarithmic value function than with a normalized exponential value function. We discuss several issues, and speculate about why Tversky and Kahneman did not address Markowitz’s fourfold pattern.     

Social comparison and risk taking behavior

This paper studies the effects of social comparison on risk taking behavior. In our theoretical framework, decision makers evaluate the consequences of their choices relative to both their own and their peers’ conditions. We test experimentally whether the position in the social ranking affects risk attitudes. Subjects interact in a simulated workplace environment where they perform a work task, receive possibly different wages, and then undertake a risky decision that may produce an extra gain. We find that social comparison matters for risk attitudes. Subjects are more risk averse in the presence of small social gain than social loss. In addition, risk aversion is decreasing in the size of the social gain.     

Intertemporal choice under timing risk: An experimental approach

This paper investigates how individuals evaluate delayed outcomes with risky realization times. Under the discounted expected utility (DEU) model, such evaluations depend only on intertemporal preferences. We obtain several testable hypotheses using the DEU model as a benchmark and test these hypotheses in three experiments. In general, our results show that the DEU model is a poor predictor of intertemporal choice behavior under timing risk. We found that individuals are averse to timing risk and that they evaluate timing lotteries in a rank-dependent fashion. The main driver of timing risk aversion is nothing but probabilistic risk aversion that stems from the nonlinear treatment of probabilities.     

Stability of risk preferences and the reflection effect of prospect theory

Are risk preferences stable over time? To address this question we elicit risk preferences from the same pool of subjects at two different moments in time. To interpret the results, we use a Fechner stochastic choice model in which the revealed preference of individuals is governed by some underlying preference, together with a random error. We take cumulative prospect theory as the underlying preference model (Kahneman and Tversky, Econometrica 47:263–292, 1979; Tversky and Kahneman, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5:297–323, 1992). We observe that the aggregate pattern of preferences is very similar in both sessions, and it matches the results reported in the literature. Most subjects are risk averse for gains, and risk seeking for losses. However, the subjects that jointly agree with the reflection effect of prospect theory are around 50%. The percentage of individuals that change their responses across sessions is quite high, 63%. Estimating the stochastic choice model we find that 72% of the subjects have an underlying preference which agrees with the reflection effect of prospect theory. The remaining 28% are mainly classified as risk averse for both gains and losses. The results reinforce the empirical validity of the reflection effect. Deviations from the reflection effect can be attributed to noise, as well as to the existence of a fraction of risk averse subjects.     

Greater Downside Risk Aversion

Although investors are concerned foremost with mean and variance, they are also sensitive to downside risk. In this paper, we introduce an index of downside risk aversion to distinguish risk aversion from higher-order aspects of risk preference, including prudence. We show that the index of downside risk aversion S increases with monotonic downside risk averse transformations of utility, thereby directly linking S to the definition of downside risk aversion introduced by Menezes et al. (American Economic Review, 70, 921–932, 1980). Although the index S applies equally to risk averse and risk loving decision makers, for a given positive degree of risk aversion, S is greater when the index of prudence is greater and vice versa.     

Recursive expected utility and the separation of attitudes towards risk and ambiguity: an experimental study

We use the multiple price list method and a recursive expected utility theory of smooth ambiguity to separate out attitude towards risk from that towards ambiguity. Based on this separation, we investigate if there are differences in agent behaviour under uncertainty over gain amounts vis-a-vis uncertainty over loss amounts. On an aggregate level, we find that (i) subjects are risk averse over gains and risk seeking over losses, displaying a “reflection effect” and (ii) they are ambiguity neutral over gains and are mildly ambiguity seeking over losses. Further analysis shows that on an individual level, and with respect to both risky and ambiguous prospects, there is limited incidence of a reflection effect where subjects are risk/ambiguity averse (seeking) in gains and seeking (averse) in losses, though this incidence is higher for ambiguous prospects. A very high proportion of such cases of reflection exhibit risk (ambiguity) aversion in gains and risk (ambiguity) seeking in losses, with the reverse effect being significantly present in the case of risk but almost absent in case of ambiguity. Our results suggest that reflection across gains and losses is not a stable individual characteristic, but depends upon whether the form of uncertainty is precise or ambiguous, since we rarely find an individual who exhibits reflection in both risky and ambiguous prospects. We also find that correlations between attitudes towards risk and ambiguity were domain dependent.      

The effects of loss aversion on deceptive advertising policies

We extend the deceptive advertising model of Piccolo et al. (RAND J Econ 46(3):611–624, 2015) to a framework in which consumers may be loss averse. There are two sellers, competing on prices and offering experience goods with some differences in quality. Prospective customers may be harmed by deceptive advertising: a marketing practice that can induce them to make bad purchases. We show that although deceptive advertising occurs depending on the degree of consumers’ loss aversion, this behavioral bias does not reflect on firms’ prices. Nevertheless, the presence of loss-averse consumers crucially changes the optimal deterrence rule that a Public Authority should adopt against false claims and misleading advertising. Unlike Piccolo et al. (2015), in this more general model, strong enforcements may improve the buyer welfare according to the degree of loss aversion.

     

Ambiguity framed

In his exposition of subjective expected utility theory, Savage (1954) proposed that the Allais paradox could be reduced if it were recast into a format which made the appeal of the independence axiom of expected utility theory more transparent. Recent studies consistently find support for this prediction. We consider a salience-based choice model which explains this frame-dependence of the Allais paradox. We then derive the novel prediction that the presentation format responsible for reductions in Allais-style violations of expected utility theory will also reduce Ellsberg-style violations of subjective expected utility theory. This format makes the appeal of Savage’s “sure thing principle” more transparent. We design an experiment to test this prediction and find strong support for such frame-dependence of ambiguity aversion in Ellsberg-style choices. In particular, we observe markedly less ambiguity-averse behavior in Savage’s matrix format than in a more standard “prospect” format. This finding poses a new challenge for the leading models of ambiguity aversion.     

Risk seeking with diminishing marginal utility in a non-expected utility model

The present work takes place in the framework of a non-expected utility model under risk: the RDEU theory (Rank Dependent Expected Utility, first initiated by Quiggin under the denomination of Anticipated Utility), where the decision maker's behavior is characterized by two functionsu andf. Our first result gives a condition under which the functionu characterizes the decision maker's attitude towards wealth. Then, defining a decision maker as risk averter (respectively risk seeker) when he always prefers to any random variable its expected value (weak definition of risk aversion), the second result states that a decision maker who has an increasing marginal utility of wealth (a convex functionu) can be risk averse, if his functionf issufficiently below his functionu, hence if he is sufficientlypessimistic. Obviously, he can also be risk seeking with a diminishing marginal utility of wealth. This result is noteworthy because with a stronger definition of risk aversion/risk seeking, based on mean-preserving spreads, Chew, Karni, and Safra have shown that the only way to be risk averse (in their sense) in RDEU theory is to have, simultaneously, a concave functionu and a convex functionf.