IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rfinst/v33y2020i8p3674-3718..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

History-Dependent Risk Preferences: Evidence from Individual Choices and Implications for the Disposition Effect

Author

Listed:
  • Angie Andrikogiannopoulou
  • Filippos Papakonstantinou
  • Francesca Cornelli

Abstract

Using trading data from a sports wagering market, we estimate individuals’ dynamic risk preferences within a prospect theory paradigm. This market’s experimental-like features facilitate preference estimation, and our long panel enables us to study whether preferences vary across individuals and depend on earlier outcomes. Our estimates extend support for experimental findings—mild utility curvature, moderate loss aversion, and probability overweighting of extreme outcomes—to a market setting and reveal that preferences are heterogeneous and history dependent. Applying our estimates to a portfolio choice problem, we show prospect theory can better explain the prevalence of the disposition effect than previously thought.Authors have furnished an Internet Appendix, which is available on the Oxford University Press Web site next to the link to the final published paper online.

Suggested Citation

  • Angie Andrikogiannopoulou & Filippos Papakonstantinou & Francesca Cornelli, 2020. "History-Dependent Risk Preferences: Evidence from Individual Choices and Implications for the Disposition Effect," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 33(8), pages 3674-3718.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rfinst:v:33:y:2020:i:8:p:3674-3718.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/rfs/hhz127
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Giannikos, Christos I. & Kakolyris, Andreas & Suen, Tin Shan, 2023. "Prospect theory and a manager's decision to trade a blind principal bid basket," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    2. Nicholas Barberis & Lawrence J. Jin & Baolian Wang, 2021. "Prospect Theory and Stock Market Anomalies," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 76(5), pages 2639-2687, October.
    3. Goto, Shingo & Yamada, Toru, 2023. "What drives biased odds in sports betting markets: Bettors’ irrationality and the role of bookmakers," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 252-270.
    4. Jin, Xuejun & Li, Hongze & Yu, Bin & Zheng, Yijing, 2023. "How does the COVID-19 pandemic change the disposition effect in fund investors?," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    5. Guo, Jing & He, Xue Dong, 2021. "A new preference model that allows for narrow framing," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    6. Yu, Dian & Gao, Jianjun & Wang, Tongyao, 2022. "Betting market equilibrium with heterogeneous beliefs: A prospect theory-based model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(1), pages 137-151.
    7. Mujcic, Redzo & Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2022. "How Do Humans Respond to Huge Financial Losses?," IZA Discussion Papers 15536, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Kasinger, Johannes & Schneider, Dmitrij, 2022. "Skewness preferences: Evidence from online poker," SAFE Working Paper Series 351, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    9. Jan Hanousek Jr. & Jan Hanousek & Jakub Mikulka & Jared Williams, 2023. "Early Outcomes and Future Risk-taking: Evidence from a Large Gambling Provider," MENDELU Working Papers in Business and Economics 2023-90, Mendel University in Brno, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    10. Brettschneider, Julia & Burro, Giovanni & Henderson, Vicky, 2021. "Wide framing disposition effect: An empirical study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 330-347.

    More about this item

    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:oup:rfinst:v:33:y:2020:i:8:p:3674-3718.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sfsssea.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.