IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i24p17037-d1007478.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Implicit Negativity Bias Leads to Greater Loss Aversion and Learning during Decision-Making

Author

Listed:
  • Francisco Molins

    (Department of Psychobiology, Universitat de València, Av. Blasco Ibáñez, 13, 46010 Valencia, Spain)

  • Celia Martínez-Tomás

    (Department of Psychobiology, Universitat de València, Av. Blasco Ibáñez, 13, 46010 Valencia, Spain)

  • Miguel Ángel Serrano

    (Department of Psychobiology, Universitat de València, Av. Blasco Ibáñez, 13, 46010 Valencia, Spain)

Abstract

It is widely accepted there is the existence of negativity bias, a greater sensitivity to negative emotional stimuli compared with positive ones, but its effect on decision-making would depend on the context. In risky decisions, negativity bias could lead to non-rational choices by increasing loss aversion; yet in ambiguous decisions, it could favor reinforcement-learning and better decisions by increasing sensitivity to punishments. Nevertheless, these hypotheses have not been tested to date. Our aim was to fill this gap. Sixty-nine participants rated ambiguous emotional faces (from the NimStim set) as positive or negative to assess negativity bias. The implicit level of the bias was also obtained by tracking the mouse’s trajectories when rating faces. Then, they performed both a risky and an ambiguous decision-making task. Participants displayed negativity bias, but only at the implicit level. In addition, this bias was associated with loss aversion in risky decisions, and with greater performance through the ambiguous decisional task. These results highlight the need to contextualize biases, rather than draw general conclusions about whether they are inherently good or bad.

Suggested Citation

  • Francisco Molins & Celia Martínez-Tomás & Miguel Ángel Serrano, 2022. "Implicit Negativity Bias Leads to Greater Loss Aversion and Learning during Decision-Making," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-11, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:24:p:17037-:d:1007478
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/24/17037/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/24/17037/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Bechara, Antoine & Damasio, Antonio R., 2005. "The somatic marker hypothesis: A neural theory of economic decision," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 336-372, August.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    4. Daniel Kahneman, 2003. "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1449-1475, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ömür Saltık & Wasim ul Rehman & Rıdvan Söyü & Süleyman Değirmen & Ahmet Şengönül, 2023. "Predicting loss aversion behavior with machine-learning methods," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-14, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Francisco Molins & Fatmanur Sahin & Miguel Ángel Serrano, 2022. "The Genetics of Risk Aversion: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-22, November.
    2. Nolan Ritter & Julia Anna Bingler, 2021. "Do homo sapiens know their prices? Insights on dysfunctional price mechanisms from a large field experiment," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 21/348, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    3. Cédric Gutierrez & Tomasz Obloj & Douglas H. Frank, 2021. "Better to have led and lost than never to have led at all? Lost leadership and effort provision in dynamic tournaments," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(4), pages 774-801, April.
    4. Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano, 2021. "Microfoundations, behaviour, and evolution: Evidence from experiments," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 372-385.
    5. Ralf Elbert & Lowis Seikowsky, 2017. "The influences of behavioral biases, barriers and facilitators on the willingness of forwarders’ decision makers to modal shift from unimodal road freight transport to intermodal road–rail freight tra," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 87(8), pages 1083-1123, November.
    6. HAMADI, Malika & RENGIFO, Erick & SALZMAN, Diego, 2005. "Illusionary finance and trading behavior," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2005004, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    7. Erich Renz & Marvin M. Müller & Kim Leonardo Böhm, 2023. "When nudges promote neutral behavior: an experimental study of managerial decisions under risk and uncertainty," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 93(8), pages 1309-1354, October.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:1:p:77-82 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Daniel Gottlieb & Olivia S. Mitchell, 2020. "Narrow Framing and Long‐Term Care Insurance," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 87(4), pages 861-893, December.
    10. Hobman, Elizabeth V. & Frederiks, Elisha R. & Stenner, Karen & Meikle, Sarah, 2016. "Uptake and usage of cost-reflective electricity pricing: Insights from psychology and behavioural economics," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 455-467.
    11. Xavier Gabaix, 2017. "Behavioral Inattention," NBER Working Papers 24096, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Ryan, Anthony M. & Spash, Clive L., 2008. "Measuring “Awareness of Environmental Consequences”: Two Scales and Two Interpretations," MPRA Paper 101868, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Liyan Yang, 2019. "Loss Aversion in Financial Markets," The Journal of Mechanism and Institution Design, Society for the Promotion of Mechanism and Institution Design, University of York, vol. 4(1), pages 119-137, November.
    14. Sanguineti, Francesca & Majocchi, Antonio & Cavusgil, S. Tamer, 2022. "Founding entrepreneur’s dilemma: Stay or exit the firm following an acquisition? An international comparison," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(1).
    15. Eduard Marinov, 2017. "The 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 117-159.
    16. Döring Thomas, 2013. "John Maynard Keynes als Verhaltensökonom – illustriert anhand seiner Analyse des Versailler Vertrags / John Maynard Keynes as Behavioral Economist – Represented by his Analysis of the Treaty of Versai," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 64(1), pages 27-52, January.
    17. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2017. "Richard H. Thaler: Integrating Economics with Psychology," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2017-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    18. Junankar, Pramod N. (Raja), 2016. "On Measuring Uncertainty: Snakes and Ladders," IZA Discussion Papers 10244, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Frederiks, Elisha R. & Stenner, Karen & Hobman, Elizabeth V., 2015. "Household energy use: Applying behavioural economics to understand consumer decision-making and behaviour," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1385-1394.
    20. Joyita Banerji & Kaushik Kundu & Parveen Ahmed Alam, 2023. "The Impact of Behavioral Biases on Individuals’ Financial Choices under Uncertainty: An Empirical Approach," Business Perspectives and Research, , vol. 11(3), pages 401-424, September.
    21. Andrea Lippi, 2014. "Does menu design influence retirement investment choices? Evidence from Italian occupational pension funds," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(1), pages 77-82, January.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:24:p:17037-:d:1007478. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.