IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v161y2019icp68-78.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dynamic risk preferences under realized and paper outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Nielsen, Kirby

Abstract

We conduct a large-scale test of dynamic risk preferences. While most of the literature on dynamic risk restricts attention to positively skewed gambles, subjects in our experiment tend to choose negatively skewed lotteries. This allows us to study dynamic risk preferences in an environment that the literature has not analyzed. We find evidence of the reinforcement effect—individuals take on more risk after a gain and take on less risk after a loss. Furthermore, we exogenously vary whether these outcomes are “realized” or on paper, according to the distinction put forth by Imas (2016). We find little difference in the responses to realized and paper outcomes in environments of negatively skewed risk.

Suggested Citation

  • Nielsen, Kirby, 2019. "Dynamic risk preferences under realized and paper outcomes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 68-78.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:161:y:2019:i:c:p:68-78
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2019.03.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268119300885
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.03.016?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gary Smith & Michael Levere & Robert Kurtzman, 2009. "Poker Player Behavior After Big Wins and Big Losses," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(9), pages 1547-1555, September.
    2. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    3. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2013. "The “bomb” risk elicitation task," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 31-65, August.
    4. Camerer, Colin F & Ho, Teck-Hua, 1994. "Violations of the Betweenness Axiom and Nonlinearity in Probability," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 167-196, March.
    5. Barberis, Nicholas & Xiong, Wei, 2012. "Realization utility," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 251-271.
    6. Alex Imas, 2016. "The Realization Effect: Risk-Taking after Realized versus Paper Losses," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(8), pages 2086-2109, August.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:5:p:424-440 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Shefrin, Hersh & Statman, Meir, 1985. "The Disposition to Sell Winners Too Early and Ride Losers Too Long: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 40(3), pages 777-790, July.
    9. Yu-Jane Liu & Chih-Ling Tsai & Ming-Chun Wang & Ning Zhu, 2010. "Prior Consequences and Subsequent Risk Taking: New Field Evidence from the Taiwan Futures Exchange," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(4), pages 606-620, April.
    10. Hans-Martin Gaudecker & Arthur Soest & Erik Wengström, 2012. "Experts in experiments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 159-190, October.
    11. Richard H. Thaler & Eric J. Johnson, 1990. "Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 643-660, June.
    12. Weber, Martin & Camerer, Colin F., 1998. "The disposition effect in securities trading: an experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 167-184, January.
    13. George Wu & Richard Gonzalez, 1996. "Curvature of the Probability Weighting Function," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(12), pages 1676-1690, December.
    14. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    15. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang & Tano Santos, 2001. "Prospect Theory and Asset Prices," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(1), pages 1-53.
    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. Julien Jacob & Eve-Angéline Lambert & Mathieu Lefebvre & Sarah Driessche, 2023. "Information disclosure under liability: an experiment on public bads," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(1), pages 155-197, July.
    2. Dalmia, Prateik & Filiz-Ozbay, Emel, 2021. "Your success is my motivation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 49-85.
    3. Christoph Merkle & Jan Müller-Dethard & Martin Weber, 2021. "Closing a mental account: the realization effect for gains and losses," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 303-329, March.
    4. Rawley Heimer & Zwetelina Iliewa & Alex Imas & Martin Weber, 2021. "Dynamic Inconsistency in Risky Choice: Evidence From the Lab and Field," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2021_274, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    5. Flepp, Raphael & Meier, Philippe & Franck, Egon, 2021. "The effect of paper outcomes versus realized outcomes on subsequent risk-taking: Field evidence from casino gambling," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 45-55.
    6. Horn, Dániel & Kiss, Hubert János & Lénárd, Tünde, 2022. "Gender differences in preferences of adolescents: Evidence from a large-scale classroom experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 478-522.
    7. Sautua, Santiago I., 2020. "When diversification clashes with the reinforcement heuristic: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 196-211.
    8. Markus Dertwinkel‐Kalt & Jonas Frey, 2024. "Optimal Stopping In A Dynamic Salience Model," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 65(2), pages 885-913, May.
    9. Mujcic, Redzo & Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2022. "How Do Humans Respond to Huge Financial Losses?," IZA Discussion Papers 15536, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Hermanns, Benedicta & Kokot, Johanna, 2023. "Contextual framing effects on risk aversion assessed using the bomb risk elicitation task," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    11. Philippe Meier & Raphael Flepp & Maximilian Rüdisser & Egon Franck, 2020. "The effect of paper versus realized losses on subsequent risk-taking: Field evidence from casino gambling," Working Papers 385, University of Zurich, Department of Business Administration (IBW).

    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. Flepp, Raphael & Meier, Philippe & Franck, Egon, 2021. "The effect of paper outcomes versus realized outcomes on subsequent risk-taking: Field evidence from casino gambling," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 45-55.
    2. Jin, Miao & Liu, Yu-Jane & Meng, Juanjuan, 2019. "Fat-finger event and risk-taking behavior," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 126-143.
    3. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:2:p:118-127 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Mujcic, Redzo & Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2022. "How Do Humans Respond to Huge Financial Losses?," IZA Discussion Papers 15536, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Matteo Ploner, 2017. "Hold on to it? An experimental analysis of the disposition effect," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(2), pages 118-127, March.
    7. Philippe Meier & Raphael Flepp & Maximilian Rüdisser & Egon Franck, 2020. "The effect of paper versus realized losses on subsequent risk-taking: Field evidence from casino gambling," Working Papers 385, University of Zurich, Department of Business Administration (IBW).
    8. Henderson, Vicky & Hobson, David & Tse, Alex S.L., 2018. "Probability weighting, stop-loss and the disposition effect," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 360-397.
    9. Hong Chao & Chun-Yu Ho & Xiangdong Qin, 2017. "Risk taking after absolute and relative wealth changes: The role of reference point adaptation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 157-186, April.
    10. Niko Suhonen & Jani Saastamoinen, 2018. "How Do Prior Gains and Losses Affect Subsequent Risk Taking? New Evidence from Individual-Level Horse Race Bets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(6), pages 2797-2808, June.
    11. Li, Yan & Yang, Liyan, 2013. "Prospect theory, the disposition effect, and asset prices," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 715-739.
    12. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    13. George Wu & Alex B. Markle, 2008. "An Empirical Test of Gain-Loss Separability in Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1322-1335, July.
    14. Christoph Merkle & Jan Müller-Dethard & Martin Weber, 2021. "Closing a mental account: the realization effect for gains and losses," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 303-329, March.
    15. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver & Wiercinski, Ben, 2017. "The Relationship between Farmers' Shock Experiences and their Uncertainty Preferences - Experimental Evidence from Mexico," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 256212, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    16. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    17. M. Pelé & M. Broihanne & B. Thierry & J. Call & V. Dufour, 2014. "To bet or not to bet? Decision-making under risk in non-human primates," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 141-166, October.
    18. Mugerman, Yevgeny & Sade, Orly & Winter, Eyal, 2020. "Out-of-pocket vs. out-of-investment in financial advisory fees: Evidence from the lab," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    19. Enrico Giorgi & Thorsten Hens, 2006. "Making prospect theory fit for finance," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 20(3), pages 339-360, September.
    20. Lucks, Konstantin, 2016. "The Impact of Self-Control on Investment Decisions," MPRA Paper 73099, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    21. Steffen Meyer & Michaela Pagel, 2022. "Fully Closed: Individual Responses to Realized Gains and Losses," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 77(3), pages 1529-1585, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Dynamic risk; Reinforcement effect; History-dependent preferences; Prospect theory; Realization effect;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:eee:jeborg:v:161:y:2019:i:c:p:68-78. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    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.