IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jdm/journl/v7y2012i4p462-471.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measurement-induced focusing and the magnitude of loss aversion: The difference between comparing gains to losses and losses to gains

Author

Listed:
  • Fieke Harinck
  • Ilja Van Beest
  • Eric Van Dijk
  • Marjolijn Van Zeeland

Abstract

Research has identified loss aversion as a strong and robust phenomenon, but has also revealed some moderators affecting the magnitude of its effect on decision making. In the current article, we draw attention to the fact that even the measurement of loss aversion itself may affect its magnitude by inducing a focus on either losses or gains. In three studies, we provide empirical evidence for such a measurement-induced focus. In all studies we used coin-toss gambles---in which there is a 50/50 chance to win or to lose---to assess gain/loss ratios as a measure of loss aversion. Participants either filled out the loss side or the gain side of this gain/loss ratio. The studies consistently showed that---using within- and between-subject designs and anticipated and real coin-toss gambles---the strength of loss aversion depended on the measurement format (fill-in-the-loss versus fill-in-the-gain); filling in the loss side increased loss aversion. Moreover, loss aversion was more affected by the stakes of the gamble in the fill-in-the-loss format than in the fill-in-the-gain format.

Suggested Citation

  • Fieke Harinck & Ilja Van Beest & Eric Van Dijk & Marjolijn Van Zeeland, 2012. "Measurement-induced focusing and the magnitude of loss aversion: The difference between comparing gains to losses and losses to gains," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(4), pages 462-471, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:jdm:journl:v:7:y:2012:i:4:p:462-471
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://journal.sjdm.org/11/11303a/jdm11303a.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://journal.sjdm.org/11/11303a/jdm11303a.html
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1995. "Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 110(1), pages 73-92.
    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. 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.
    4. van Dijk, Eric & van Knippenberg, Daan, 1998. "Trading wine: On the endowment effect, loss aversion, and the comparability of consumer goods," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 485-495, August.
    5. Knetsch, Jack L, 1989. "The Endowment Effect and Evidence of Nonreversible Indifference Curves," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(5), pages 1277-1284, December.
    6. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    7. Kliger, Doron & Levit, Boris, 2009. "Evaluation periods and asset prices: Myopic loss aversion at the financial marketplace," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 361-371, August.
    8. Schoemaker, Paul J H, 1982. "The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 20(2), pages 529-563, June.
    9. Arkes, Hal R. & Blumer, Catherine, 1985. "The psychology of sunk cost," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 124-140, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:jdm:journl:v:7:y:2012:i:4:p:462-471. 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: (Jonathan Baron). General contact details of provider: .

    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.