Failure is embarrassing. In gambles involving both skill and chance, we show that a strategic desire to avoid appearing unskilled generates behavioral anomalies that are typically explained by prospect theory’s concepts of loss aversion, probability weighting, and framing effects. Loss aversion arises because losing any gamble, even a friendly bet with little or no money at stake, reflects poorly on the decision maker’s skill. Probability weighting emerges because winning a gamble with a low probability of success is a strong signal of skill, while losing a gamble with a high probability of success is a strong signal of incompetence. Framing matters when there are multiple equilibria and the framing of a gamble affects beliefs, e.g., when someone takes a “dare” rather than admit a lack of skill. The analysis is based on models from the career concerns literature and is closely related to early social psychology models of risk taking. The results provide an alternative perspective on the existence of prospect theory behavior in economic, financial, and managerial decisions where both skill and chance are important. We identify specific situations where skill signaling makes opposite predictions than prospect theory, allowing for tests between the strategic and behavioral approaches to understanding risk.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy in its series Working Papers with number
2005-06.
Find related papers by JEL classification: M0 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting - - General D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
Barberis, Nicholas & Thaler, Richard, 2003.
"A survey of behavioral finance,"
Handbook of the Economics of Finance,
in: G.M. Constantinides & M. Harris & R. M. Stulz (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Finance, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 18, pages 1053-1128
Elsevier.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Other versions:
Avery, Christopher N. & Chevalier, Judith A., 1999.
"Herding over the career,"
Economics Letters,
Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 327-333, June.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Menezes, C & Geiss, C & Tressler, J, 1980.
"Increasing Downside Risk,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 70(5), pages 921-32, December.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Benabou, R. & Tirole, J., 2001.
"Willpower and Personal Rules,"
Papers
216, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Public and International Affairs.
Other versions:
Scharfstein, David. & Stein, Jeremy C., 1988.
"Herd behavior and investment,"
Working papers
WP 2062-88., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
[Downloadable!]
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)