IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/psy95_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Losing money: Risk preferences for losses from long-term endowments

Author

Listed:
  • Hu, Xinyue

    (University of California, Irvine)

  • Koudahl, Magnus Tønder
  • Morville, Tobias
  • Siebner, Hartwig
  • Hulme, Oliver J

Abstract

A central prediction within the behavioral sciences asserts that agents are risk-seeking in the domain of losses. This prediction rests on experimental evidence that did not involve the realistic experience of losses. Here we tested whether this notion still holds if participants face realistic losses. To this end, we endowed participants with over $600 for at least one month and asked them to play gambles for real, substantive, and consequential losses that spanned three orders of magnitude. A hierarchical Bayesian cognitive model comprising a latent mixture of several competing utility models yielded strong evidence for risk-seeking in the domain of losses. The participant's risk-seeking behavior was invariant to the order of magnitude of the gamble. According to this data, risk-seeking behaviour in the domain of losses generalised in our sample to consequential and substantive financial losses.

Suggested Citation

  • Hu, Xinyue & Koudahl, Magnus Tønder & Morville, Tobias & Siebner, Hartwig & Hulme, Oliver J, 2024. "Losing money: Risk preferences for losses from long-term endowments," OSF Preprints psy95_v1, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:psy95_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/psy95_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/66639f99d835c42d134cdd0a/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/psy95_v1?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. Kazumi Shimizu & Daisuke Udagawa, 2018. "Is human life worth peanuts? Risk attitude changes in accordance with varying stakes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-12, August.
    2. Paul M. Krueger & Robert C. Wilson & Jonathan D. Cohen, 2017. "Strategies for exploration in the domain of losses," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(2), pages 104-117, March.
    3. Camerer, Colin F & Hogarth, Robin M, 1999. "The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 7-42, December.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:2:p:104-117 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Helga Fehr-Duda & Adrian Bruhin & Thomas Epper & Renate Schubert, 2010. "Rationality on the rise: Why relative risk aversion increases with stake size," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 147-180, April.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Jean Daunizeau & Vincent Adam & Lionel Rigoux, 2014. "VBA: A Probabilistic Treatment of Nonlinear Models for Neurobiological and Behavioural Data," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, January.
    9. Krueger, Paul M. & Wilson, Robert C. & Cohen, Jonathan D., 2017. "Strategies for exploration in the domain of losses," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 104-117, March.
    10. Peter Brooks & Simon Peters & Horst Zank, 2014. "Risk behavior for gain, loss, and mixed prospects," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 153-182, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Adam Oliver, 2018. "Your money and your life: Risk attitudes over gains and losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 29-50, August.
    2. Mathieu Lefebvre & Ferdinand Vieider & Marie Villeval, 2011. "The ratio bias phenomenon: fact or artifact?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 615-641, October.
    3. Oliver, Adam, 2018. "Your money and your life: risk attitudes over gains and losses," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 88583, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Narges Hajimoladarvish, 2017. "Very Low Probabilities in the Loss Domain," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 42(1), pages 41-58, March.
    5. Adam Booij & Bernard Praag & Gijs Kuilen, 2010. "A parametric analysis of prospect theory’s functionals for the general population," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 115-148, February.
    6. Narges Hajimoladarvish, 2017. "Very Low Probabilities in the Loss Domain," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, Springer;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 42(1), pages 41-58, March.
    7. Manel Baucells & Antonio Villasís, 2010. "Stability of risk preferences and the reflection effect of prospect theory," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 193-211, February.
    8. Peter Brooks & Horst Zank, 2005. "Loss Averse Behavior," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 301-325, December.
    9. Arkes, Hal R. & Hirshleifer, David & Jiang, Danling & Lim, Sonya, 2008. "Reference point adaptation: Tests in the domain of security trading," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 67-81, January.
    10. Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2015. "Demand for fixed-price multi-year contracts: Experimental evidence from insurance decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 171-194, October.
    11. Sarah Jacobson & Ragan Petrie, 2009. "Learning from mistakes: What do inconsistent choices over risk tell us?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 143-158, April.
    12. Döring Thomas, 2013. "John Maynard Keynes als Verhaltensökonom – illustriert anhand seiner Analyse des Versailler Vertrags / John Maynard Keynes as Behavioral Economist – Represented by his Analysis of the Treaty of Versai," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 64(1), pages 27-52, January.
    13. Villacis, Alexis H., 2023. "Inconsistent choices over prospect theory lottery games: Evidence from field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    14. Matthias Buchholz & Oliver Musshoff, 2021. "Tax or green nudge? An experimental analysis of pesticide policies in Germany [A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(4), pages 940-982.
    15. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent, 2009. "Probability weighting and the ‘level’ and ‘spacing’ of outcomes: An experimental study over losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 45-63, August.
    16. Konstantinos Georgalos & Ivan Paya & David Peel, 2023. "Higher order risk attitudes: new model insights and heterogeneity of preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(1), pages 145-192, March.
    17. Hajimoladarvish, Narges, 2021. "Explaining Heterogeneity in Risk Preferences Using a Finite Mixture Model," Journal of Money and Economy, Monetary and Banking Research Institute, Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran, vol. 16(4), pages 533-554, December.
    18. Luís Santos-Pinto & Adrian Bruhin & José Mata & Thomas Åstebro, 2015. "Detecting heterogeneous risk attitudes with mixed gambles," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 573-600, December.
    19. Ranoua Bouchouicha & Peter Martinsson & Haileselassie Medhin & Ferdinand M. Vieider, 2017. "Stake effects on ambiguity attitudes for gains and losses," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(1), pages 19-35, June.
    20. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.

    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:osf:osfxxx:psy95_v1. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    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.