IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v64y2018i3p997-1014.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Betting Your Favorite to Win: Costly Reluctance to Hedge Desired Outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Carey K. Morewedge

    (Questrom School of Business, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215)

  • Simone Tang

    (Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708)

  • Richard P. Larrick

    (Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708)

Abstract

We examined whether people reduce the impact of negative outcomes through emotional hedging —betting against the occurrence of desired outcomes. We found substantial reluctance to bet against the success of preferred U.S. presidential candidates and Major League Baseball, National Football League, National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) basketball, and NCAA hockey teams. This reluctance was not attributable to optimism or a general aversion to hedging. Reluctance to hedge desired outcomes stemmed from identity signaling, a desire to preserve an important aspect of the bettor’s identity. Reluctance to hedge occurred when the diagnostic cost of the negative self-signal that hedging would produce outweighed the pecuniary rewards associated with hedging. Participants readily accepted hedges and pure gambles with no diagnostic costs. They also more readily accepted hedges with diagnostic costs when the pecuniary rewards associated with those hedges were greater. Reluctance to hedge identity-relevant outcomes produced two anomalies in decision making, risk seeking and dominance violations. More than 45% of NCAA fans in Studies 5 and 6, for instance, turned down a “free” real $5 bet against their team. The results elucidate anomalous decisions in which people exhibit disloyalty aversion, forgoing personal rewards that would conflict with their loyalties and commitments to others, beliefs, and ideals.

Suggested Citation

  • Carey K. Morewedge & Simone Tang & Richard P. Larrick, 2018. "Betting Your Favorite to Win: Costly Reluctance to Hedge Desired Outcomes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(3), pages 997-1014, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:64:y:2018:i:3:p:997-1014
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2016.2656
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2656
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2656?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gregory W. Fischer & Mark S. Kamlet & Stephen E. Fienberg & David Schkade, 1986. "Risk Preferences for Gains and Losses in Multiple Objective Decision Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(9), pages 1065-1086, September.
    2. Meulbroek, Lisa, 2005. "Company Stock in Pension Plans: How Costly Is It?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 48(2), pages 443-474, October.
    3. Benartzi, Shlomo & Thaler, Richard H & Utkus, Stephen P & Sunstein, Cass R, 2007. "The Law and Economics of Company Stock in 401(k) Plans," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 50(1), pages 45-79, February.
    4. 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..
    5. Robert Slonim & Alvin E. Roth, 1998. "Learning in High Stakes Ultimatum Games: An Experiment in the Slovak Republic," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 569-596, May.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:3:p:224-234 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Norman Strong & Xinzhong Xu, 2003. "Understanding the Equity Home Bias: Evidence from Survey Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 85(2), pages 307-312, May.
    8. John W. Payne & Dan J. Laughhunn & Roy Crum, 1984. "Multiattribute Risky Choice Behavior: The Editing of Complex Prospects," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(11), pages 1350-1361, November.
    9. 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..
    10. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, 2004. "Social norms and human cooperation," Macroeconomics 0409026, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Gerlinde Fellner & Boris Maciejovsky, "undated". "The Equity Home Bias: Contrasting An Institutional With A Behavioral Explanation," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2003-03, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    12. Smith, Clifford W. & Stulz, René M., 1985. "The Determinants of Firms' Hedging Policies," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(4), pages 391-405, December.
    13. Steven D. Levitt, 2004. "Why are gambling markets organised so differently from financial markets?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(495), pages 223-246, April.
    14. Hsee, Christopher K & Kunreuther, Howard C, 2000. "The Affection Effect in Insurance Decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 141-159, March.
    15. Cooper, Ian & Kaplanis, Evi, 1994. "Home Bias in Equity Portfolios, Inflation Hedging, and International Capital Market Equilibrium," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 7(1), pages 45-60.
    16. Morse, Adair & Shive, Sophie, 2011. "Patriotism in your portfolio," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 411-440, May.
    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. Kwabena Donkor & Lorenz Goette & Maximilian W. Müller & Eugen Dimant & Michael Kurschilgen, 2023. "Identity and Economic Incentives," CESifo Working Paper Series 10860, CESifo.
    2. Shimon Kogan & Florian H. Schneider & Roberto A. Weber, 2021. "Self-serving biases in beliefs about collective outcomes," ECON - Working Papers 379, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    3. Alex B. Markle & Yuval Rottenstreich, 2018. "Simultaneous Preferences for Hedging and Doubling Down: Focal Prospects, Background Positions, and Nonconsequentialist Conceptualizations of Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(12), pages 5946-5959, December.
    4. Steven D. Baker & Burton Hollifield & Emilio Osambela, 2022. "Asset Prices and Portfolios with Externalities [Pricedetermination in the EU ETS market: theory and econometric analysis with market fundamentals]," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 26(6), pages 1433-1468.

    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. Kuhberger, Anton, 1998. "The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 23-55, July.
    2. Wilson, Kevin J. & Quigley, John, 2016. "Allocation of tasks for reliability growth using multi-attribute utility," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 255(1), pages 259-271.
    3. Campbell, Rachel A. & Kraussl, Roman, 2007. "Revisiting the home bias puzzle: Downside equity risk," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(7), pages 1239-1260, November.
    4. Han Bleichrodt & Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2009. "Additive Utility in Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(5), pages 863-873, May.
    5. Peter P. Wakker & Daniëlle R. M. Timmermans & Irma Machielse, 2007. "The Effects of Statistical Information on Risk and Ambiguity Attitudes, and on Rational Insurance Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(11), pages 1770-1784, November.
    6. Itzhak Venezia, 2018. "Lecture Notes in Behavioral Finance," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number 10751, December.
    7. Tang, Simone & Morewedge, Carey M. & Larrick, Richard P. & Klein, Jill G., 2017. "Disloyalty aversion: Greater reluctance to bet against close others than the self," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 1-13.
    8. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    9. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    10. Kenneth David Strang, 2012. "Man versus math: Behaviorist exploration of post-crisis non-banking asset management," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 13(5), pages 348-367, October.
    11. Legge, Stefan & Schmid, Lukas, 2016. "Media attention and betting markets," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 304-333.
    12. Matilde Giaccherini & Giovanni Ponti, 2018. "Preference Based Subjective Beliefs," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-12, July.
    13. Erik Snowberg & Justin Wolfers, 2010. "Explaining the Favorite-Long Shot Bias: Is it Risk-Love or Misperceptions?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 118(4), pages 723-746, August.
    14. Humphreys, Brad R. & Paul, Rodney J. & Weinbach, Andrew P., 2013. "Consumption benefits and gambling: Evidence from the NCAA basketball betting market," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 376-386.
    15. Katarína Danková & Hodaka Morita & Maroš Servátka & Le Zhang, 2022. "Fairness concerns and job assignment to positions with different surplus," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 88(4), pages 1490-1516, April.
    16. Joost M. E. Pennings & Ale Smidts, 2003. "The Shape of Utility Functions and Organizational Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(9), pages 1251-1263, September.
    17. Narayan, Paresh Kumar & Westerlund, Joakim, 2014. "Does cash flow predict returns?," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 230-236.
    18. Philip W. S. Newall & Dominic Cortis, 2021. "Are Sports Bettors Biased toward Longshots, Favorites, or Both? A Literature Review," Risks, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, January.
    19. Agata Kliber & Blanka Let & Aleksandra Rutkowska, 2016. "Socio-demographic characteristics of investors in the Warsaw Stock Exchange – How they influence the investment decision," Bank i Kredyt, Narodowy Bank Polski, vol. 47(2), pages 91-118.
    20. Bruno S. Frey & David A. Savage & Benno Torgler, 2011. "Behavior under Extreme Conditions: The Titanic Disaster," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(1), pages 209-222, Winter.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:64:y:2018:i:3:p:997-1014. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.