Loss aversion

About: Loss aversion is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 2898 publications have been published within this topic receiving 115198 citations.

The house money effect and local traders on the Sydney Futures Exchange

Abstract: The “house money effect” describes the psychological tendency of investors to become increasingly risk-seeking immediately following monetary gains. We observe evidence consistent with this behavioral bias in the trades executed by professional futures traders (“locals”) on the Sydney Futures Exchange (SFE). Previous research demonstrates the house money effect among participants in laboratory settings but not among actual traders. By distinguishing qualitatively between gains and losses, rather than treating these as merely positive and negative values of a single psychological driver, we test for loss aversion and the house money effect simultaneously. Contrary to previous studies, no significant evidence is found of loss aversion.

Loss Aversion and Saving Behavior: Evidence from the 2007 U.S. Survey of Consumer Finances

Abstract: This study uses data from the 2007 Survey of Consumer Finances to examine household saving behavior based on the two-period model of consumption/saving presented by Bowman et al. (Econ Behav Organ 38:155–178, 1999). The main focus of the model is the existence of an asymmetry in saving behavior in response to positive and negative adjustments in income. The results of the logistic regression analysis support the existence of loss aversion at the household level, where having income below the household’s reference level significantly decreases the likelihood of saving, but having income above the household’s reference level does not have a significant effect on the likelihood of saving.

The Endowment Effect as Self-Enhancement in Response to Threat

Abstract: The discrepancy between willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to accept (WTA) for a product, referred to as the endowment effect, has been investigated and replicated across various domains because of its implications for rational decision making. The authors assume that implicit processes operate in the endowment effect and propose an explanation that is derived from the two main accounts of the effect, ownership and loss aversion. Based on the implicit egotism and self-affirmation literatures, the model argues that selling is perceived as an implicit self-threat and that sellers, as a part of their automatic defense mechanism, respond to this self-threat by enhancing the value of the self-associated object. Five studies test these conjectures and provide support for the proposed model.

Real and hypothetical monetary rewards modulate risk taking in the brain.

Abstract: Both real and hypothetical monetary rewards are widely used as reinforcers in risk taking and decision making studies. However, whether real and hypothetical monetary rewards modulate risk taking and decision making in the same manner remains controversial. In this study, we used event-related potentials (ERP) with a balloon analogue risk task (BART) paradigm to examine the effects of real and hypothetical monetary rewards on risk taking in the brain. Behavioral data showed reduced risk taking after negative feedback (money loss) during the BART with real rewards compared to those with hypothetical rewards, suggesting increased loss aversion with real monetary rewards. The ERP data demonstrated a larger feedback-related negativity (FRN) in response to money loss during risk taking with real rewards compared to those with hypothetical rewards, which may reflect greater prediction error or regret emotion after real monetary losses. These findings demonstrate differential effects of real versus hypothetical monetary rewards on risk taking behavior and brain activity, suggesting a caution when drawing conclusions about real choices from hypothetical studies of intended behavior, especially when large rewards are used. The results have implications for future utility of real and hypothetical monetary rewards in studies of risk taking and decision making.

Promoting De-Escalation of Commitment A Regulatory-Focus Perspective on Sunk Costs

Abstract: People frequently escalate their commitment to failing endeavors. Explanations for such behavior typically involve loss aversion, failure to recognize other alternatives, and concerns with justifying prior actions; all of these factors produce recommitment to previous decisions with the goal of erasing losses and vindicating these decisions. Solutions to escalation of commitment have therefore focused on external oversight and divided responsibility during decision making to attenuate loss aversion, blindness to alternatives, and justification biases. However, these solutions require substantial resources and have additional adverse effects. The present studies tested an alternative method for de-escalating commitment: activating broad motivations for growth and advancement (promotion). This approach should reduce concerns with loss and increase perceptions of alternatives, thereby attenuating justification motives. In two studies featuring hypothetical financial decisions, activating promotion motivations reduced recommitment to poorly performing investments as compared with both not activating any additional motivations and activating motivations for safety and security (prevention).