IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v8y2013i2p150-160_5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why are gainers more risk seeking

Author

Listed:
  • Peng, Jiaxi
  • Miao, Danmin
  • Xiao, Wei

Abstract

The phenomenon that prior gains may increase people’s willingness to accept risky gambles is named as the house money effect (Thaler and Johnson, 1990). Many studies have shown that the “house money effect” is a robust phenomenon but few scholars explain the mechanism of it well. We suppose the reason for the house money effect is that the ante (starting amount) is from the prior gambling profits, and its potential loss has relatively low psychological value. To test this hypothesis, we designed a series of studies using two-stage gambles. A total of 915 university students participated. In Study 1, in addition to a standard condition (which replicated the basic effect), we test how people respond to “prospect theory, with memory” frame, a “concreteness” frame and “quasi-hedonic” editing. None of these types of frames result in a significant house money effect. In Study 2, we certify the reference point shift to 100 Yuan in the second-stage gamble, thus the house money effect can be regarded as the absence of loss aversion; Study 3, consisting of 3 sub-experiments, indicated that gambling profits and normal income will open different mental accounts which are spent quite differently. The pain of losing 100 Yuan allowance is more serious than that of losing 100 Yuan gambling wins. People will typically reject the gamble of 50/50 chance to gain or lose 100 Yuan if the ante is from the “normal income account”, but accept if the ante is from the “windfall account”. The results of the series of experiments prove the accuracy of our hypothesis mostly.

Suggested Citation

  • Peng, Jiaxi & Miao, Danmin & Xiao, Wei, 2013. "Why are gainers more risk seeking," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 150-160, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:2:p:150-160_5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500005076/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:2:p:150-160_5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.