IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/matsoc/v33y1997i3p203-226.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Loss aversion in a multi-period model

Author

Listed:
  • Shalev, Jonathan

Abstract

An individual faces a choice between streams of outcomes in several periods in the future. This paper examines an axiomatization of preference relations over these streams that leads to a simple functional representation of these preferences. Motivated by the loss- aversion aspects of Tversky and Kahneman's prospect theory, the axioms lead to a representation that takes into account not only the utility of the per-period outcomes (instantaneous payoffs,) but also the differences between the utility of pairs of adjacent outcomes, and the direction of the differences (gains or losses). In this framework loss aversion is defined and characterized.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Shalev, Jonathan, 1997. "Loss aversion in a multi-period model," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 203-226, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:33:y:1997:i:3:p:203-226
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165-4896(96)00832-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gilboa, Itzhak, 1989. "Expectation and Variation in Multi-period Decisions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(5), pages 1153-1169, September.
    2. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    3. Kahneman, Daniel & Thaler, Richard H, 1991. "Economic Analysis and the Psychology of Utility: Applications to Compensation Policy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(2), pages 341-346, May.
    4. Loewenstein, George F & Sicherman, Nachum, 1991. "Do Workers Prefer Increasing Wage Profiles?," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 9(1), pages 67-84, January.
    5. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-1348, December.
    6. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    7. Lowenstein, George & Prelec, Drazen, 1991. "Negative Time Preference," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(2), pages 347-352, May.
    8. F J Anscombe & R J Aumann, 2000. "A Definition of Subjective Probability," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7591, David K. Levine.
    9. Peter Wakker, 1993. "Savage's Axioms Usually Imply Violation of Strict Stochastic Dominance," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 60(2), pages 487-493.
    10. Wakker, Peter, 1990. "Characterizing optimism and pessimism directly through comonotonicity," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 453-463, 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. Kareen Rozen, 2010. "Foundations of Intrinsic Habit Formation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(4), pages 1341-1373, July.
    2. Tadashi Sekiguchi & Katsutoshi Wakai, 2016. "Repeated Games with Recursive Utility:Cournot Duopoly under Gain/Loss Asymmetry," Discussion papers e-16-006, Graduate School of Economics , Kyoto University.
    3. Sujoy Mukerji & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2003. "An overview of economic applications of David Schmeidler`s models of decision making under uncertainty," Economics Series Working Papers 165, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    4. De Waegenaere, Anja & Wakker, Peter P., 2001. "Nonmonotonic Choquet integrals," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 45-60, September.
    5. Jonathan Shalev, 1998. "Loss Aversion in Repeated Games," Game Theory and Information 9802005, EconWPA.
    6. Hojman, Daniel & Kast, Felipe, 2009. "On the Measurement of Poverty Dynamics," Working Paper Series rwp09-035, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    7. Chateauneuf, Alain & Ventura, Caroline, 2013. "G-continuity, impatience and myopia for Choquet multi-period utilities," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 97-105.
    8. Han Bleichrodt & José Luis Pinto, 2000. "An experimental test of loss aversion and scale compatibility," Economics Working Papers 467, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    9. De Waegenaere, A.M.B. & Wakker, P.P., 1997. "Choquet Integrals With Respect to Non-Monotonic Set Functions," Discussion Paper 1997-44, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    10. Diecidue, Enrico & Wakker, Peter P, 2001. "On the Intuition of Rank-Dependent Utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 281-298, November.
    11. André Lapied & Robert Kast, 2005. "Updating Choquet valuation and discounting information arrivals," Working Papers 05-09, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Jan 2005.
    12. Han Bleichrodt & José Luis Pinto, 2000. "An experimental test of loss aversion and scale compatibility," Working Papers, Research Center on Health and Economics 467, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    13. Chateauneuf, Alain & Rebille, Yann, 2004. "Some characterizations of non-additive multi-period models," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 235-250, November.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C7 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory
    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, 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:matsoc:v:33:y:1997:i:3:p:203-226. 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/inca/505565 .

    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.