IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joepsy/v39y2013icp101-112.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

So when are you loss averse? Testing the S-shaped function in pricing and allocation tasks

Author

Listed:
  • Malul, Miki
  • Rosenboim, Mosi
  • Shavit, Tal

Abstract

In this paper, we describe three different experiments that explore participants’ risk attitude. When we analyzed the average results, we found that participants behave as the S-shape value function predicts. However, breaking the data down on the individual level reveals that the S-shape is valid just for about one-third of the cases. This result emerged from all three experiments. In the first experiment, we used lotteries with different stakes and found that in the high stake only 31% of the participants behave as the S-shape value function predicts. The percentage decreases to 16% when the stakes were lowered. In the second experiment, we used the prepayment mechanism (PPM) to create a more realistic experimental environment. In this case, 37% of the participants behaved consistently with the S-shape value function. In the third experiment, we used allocation tasks. The results revealed that most subjects could not be classified into one of the classical risk attitude groups. Our results imply that more than one value function is needed to characterize individuals’ attitudes toward risk. Deeper analysis is needed to characterize different value functions for different groups of individuals.

Suggested Citation

  • Malul, Miki & Rosenboim, Mosi & Shavit, Tal, 2013. "So when are you loss averse? Testing the S-shaped function in pricing and allocation tasks," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 101-112.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:39:y:2013:i:c:p:101-112 DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2013.07.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487013000974
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. WilliamT Harbaugh & Kate Krause & Lise Vesterlund, 2010. "The Fourfold Pattern of Risk Attitudes in Choice and Pricing Tasks," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 120(545), pages 595-611, June.
    2. Harless, David W., 1989. "More laboratory evidence on the disparity between willingness to pay and compensation demanded," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 359-379, May.
    3. Levy, Haim & Levy, Moshe, 2002. "Experimental test of the prospect theory value function: A stochastic dominance approach," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1058-1081, November.
    4. David Gal, 2006. "A psychological law of inertia and the illusion of loss aversion," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 23-32, July.
    5. Jeff T. Casey, 1994. "Buyers' Pricing Behavior for Risky Alternatives: Encoding Processes and Preference Reversals," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(6), pages 730-749, June.
    6. Shahrabani, Shosh & Shavit, Tal & Benzion, Uri, 2008. "Short-selling and the WTA-WTP gap," Economics Letters, Elsevier, pages 131-133.
    7. 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.
    8. Zion, Uri Ben & Erev, Ido & Haruvy, Ernan & Shavit, Tal, 2010. "Adaptive behavior leads to under-diversification," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 985-995, December.
    9. Gerlinde Fellner & Erik Theissen, 2006. "Short Sale Constraints, Divergence of Opinion and Asset Values: Evidence from the Laboratory," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 009, University of Siena.
    10. William Vickrey, 1961. "Counterspeculation, Auctions, And Competitive Sealed Tenders," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 16(1), pages 8-37, March.
    11. Alvin E. Roth & Axel Ockenfels, 2002. "Last-Minute Bidding and the Rules for Ending Second-Price Auctions: Evidence from eBay and Amazon Auctions on the Internet," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1093-1103, September.
    12. Moshe Levy & Haim Levy, 2002. "Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(10), pages 1334-1349, October.
    13. C. Ng & R. Duncan Luce & A. Marley, 2009. "Utility of Gambling when Events are Valued: an Application of Inset Entropy," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(1), pages 23-63, July.
    14. R. Luce, 2010. "Behavioral assumptions for a class of utility theories: A program of experiments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 19-37, August.
    15. Shogren, Jason F. & Cho, Sungwon & Koo, Cannon & List, John & Park, Changwon & Polo, Pablo & Wilhelmi, Robert, 2001. "Auction mechanisms and the measurement of WTP and WTA," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, pages 97-109.
    16. Mosi Rosenboim & Tal Shavit, 2012. "Whose money is it anyway? Using prepaid incentives in experimental economics to create a natural environment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(1), pages 145-157, March.
    17. Bosch-Domenech, Antoni & Silvestre, Joaquim, 1999. "Does risk aversion or attraction depend on income? An experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 265-273, December.
    18. Harless, David W & Camerer, Colin F, 1994. "The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1251-1289, November.
    19. Don L. Coursey & John L. Hovis & William D. Schulze, 1987. "The Disparity Between Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay Measures of Value," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 102(3), pages 679-690.
    20. Ernan Haruvy & Charles N. Noussair, 2006. "The Effect of Short Selling on Bubbles and Crashes in Experimental Spot Asset Markets," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 61(3), pages 1119-1157, June.
    21. Susan K. Laury & Charles A. Holt, 2005. "Further Reflections on Prospect Theory," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2006-23, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    22. Battalio, Raymond C & Kagel, John H & Jiranyakul, Komain, 1990. "Testing between Alternative Models of Choice under Uncertainty: Some Initial Results," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 25-50, March.
    23. Eisenberger, Roselies & Weber, Martin, 1995. "Willingness-to-Pay and Willingness-to-Accept for Risky and Ambiguous Lotteries," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 223-233, May.
    24. Shavit, Tal & Sonsino, Doron & Benzion, Uri, 2001. "A comparative study of lotteries-evaluation in class and on the Web," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 483-491, August.
    25. Antoni Bosch-Domènech & Joaquim Silvestre, 2006. "Reflections on gains and losses: A 2 × 2 × 7 experiment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 217-235, December.
    26. Goeree, Jacob K. & Offerman, Theo, 2003. "Winner's curse without overbidding," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 625-644, August.
    27. R. Luce, 2010. "Interpersonal comparisons of utility for 2 of 3 types of people," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 5-24, February.
    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. repec:spr:grdene:v::y::i::d:10.1007_s10726-017-9535-9 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:spr:grdene:v:26:y:2017:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-017-9535-9 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Keywords

    S-shaped; Pricing; Allocation; Prospect theory; Value function; Loss aversion;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles

    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:joepsy:v:39:y:2013:i:c:p:101-112. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joep .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.