IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/4009.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Prospect Theory and Reference Point Adaptation: Evidence from the US, China, and Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Arkes, Hal
  • Hirshleifer, David
  • Jiang, Danling
  • Lim, Sonya

Abstract

We examined prospect theory and reference point adaptation following gains or losses using participants from China, Korea, and the US. Supporting prospect theory, we found in Studies 1 and 2 that subjects from all three countries generally exhibited loss aversion and a greater propensity for risk seeking in the loss domain than in the gain domain. In Study 3 we used the Becker, DeGroot, and Marschak (1964) procedure to ascertain the valuation subjects placed on a gamble after either a prior gain or a prior loss on a stock. After inferring the shift in each subject’s reference point following this prior gain or loss, we found that reference point adaptation following a gain exceeded that following a loss in all three countries. In our third study we also had subjects sell and then immediately repurchase a stock that had experienced a prior gain or loss, which was designed to “punctuate” or close the mental account containing the prior gain or loss. This manipulation caused an increase in reference point adaptation among the Americans but a decrease among the Asians.

Suggested Citation

  • Arkes, Hal & Hirshleifer, David & Jiang, Danling & Lim, Sonya, 2007. "Prospect Theory and Reference Point Adaptation: Evidence from the US, China, and Korea," MPRA Paper 4009, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:4009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/9863/2/MPRA_paper_9863.pdf
    File Function: revised version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Lei Feng & Mark Seasholes, 2005. "Do Investor Sophistication and Trading Experience Eliminate Behavioral Biases in Financial Markets?," Review of Finance, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 305-351, September.
    3. Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, 01-02.
    4. Mark Grinblatt & Matti Keloharju, 2001. "What Makes Investors Trade?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(2), pages 589-616, April.
    5. 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.
    6. Lei Feng & Mark S. Seasholes, 2005. "Do Investor Sophistication and Trading Experience Eliminate Behavioral Biases in Financial Markets?," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 9(3), pages 305-351.
    7. Strahilevitz, Michal A & Loewenstein, George, 1998. "The Effect of Ownership History on the Valuation of Objects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(3), pages 276-289, December.
    8. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang, 2001. "Mental Accounting, Loss Aversion, and Individual Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(4), pages 1247-1292, August.
    9. Shefrin, Hersh & Statman, Meir, 1985. "The Disposition to Sell Winners Too Early and Ride Losers Too Long: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 40(3), pages 777-790, July.
    10. Kachelmeier, Steven J & Shehata, Mohamed, 1992. "Examining Risk Preferences under High Monetary Incentives: Experimental Evidence from the People's Republic of China," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(5), pages 1120-1141, December.
    11. Daniel Kahneman & Dan Lovallo, 1993. "Timid Choices and Bold Forecasts: A Cognitive Perspective on Risk Taking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(1), pages 17-31, January.
    12. repec:rus:hseeco:278562 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang, 2001. "Mental Accounting, Loss Aversion, and Individual Stock Returns," NBER Working Papers 8190, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Yates, J. Frank & Zhu, Ying & Ronis, David L. & Wang, Deng-Feng & Shinotsuka, Hiromi & Toda, Masanao, 1989. "Probability judgment accuracy: China, Japan, and the United States," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 145-171, April.
    15. 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..
    16. Elke U. Weber & Christopher Hsee, 1998. "Cross-Cultural Differences in Risk Perception, but Cross-Cultural Similarities in Attitudes Towards Perceived Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(9), pages 1205-1217, September.
    17. repec:bla:jfinan:v:53:y:1998:i:5:p:1775-1798 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1995. "Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(1), pages 73-92.
    19. Weber, Elke U. & Hsee, Christopher K. & Sokolowska, Joanna, 1998. "What Folklore Tells Us about Risk and Risk Taking: Cross-Cultural Comparisons of American, German, and Chinese Proverbs, , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 170-186, August.
    20. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang & Tano Santos, 2001. "Prospect Theory and Asset Prices," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(1), pages 1-53.
    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. Arkes, Hal R. & Hirshleifer, David & Jiang, Danling & Lim, Sonya S., 2010. "A cross-cultural study of reference point adaptation: Evidence from China, Korea, and the US," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 99-111, July.
    2. Juanjuan Meng & Xi Weng, 2018. "Can Prospect Theory Explain the Disposition Effect? A New Perspective on Reference Points," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(7), pages 3331-3351, July.
    3. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    4. Lin, Mei-Chen & Chou, Pin-Huang, 2011. "Prospect theory and the effectiveness of price limits," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 330-349, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Li, Yan & Yang, Liyan, 2013. "Prospect theory, the disposition effect, and asset prices," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 715-739.
    7. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    8. Weber, Martin & Mueller-Dethard, Jan, 2020. "The Portfolio Composition Effect," CEPR Discussion Papers 15012, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Li An & Huijun Wang & Jian Wang & Jianfeng Yu, 2020. "Lottery-Related Anomalies: The Role of Reference-Dependent Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 473-501, January.
    10. 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.
    11. Kyle, Albert S. & Ou-Yang, Hui & Xiong, Wei, 2006. "Prospect theory and liquidation decisions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 129(1), pages 273-288, July.
    12. 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.
    13. Hincapié-Salazar, Juliana & Agudelo, Diego A., 2020. "Is the disposition effect in bonds as strong as in stocks? Evidence from an emerging market," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    14. Syed Aliya Zahera & Rohit Bansal, 2018. "Do investors exhibit behavioral biases in investment decision making? A systematic review," Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 10(2), pages 210-251, May.
    15. Vicky Henderson, 2012. "Prospect Theory, Liquidation, and the Disposition Effect," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(2), pages 445-460, February.
    16. Alok Kumar & Sonya Seongyeon Lim, 2008. "How Do Decision Frames Influence the Stock Investment Choices of Individual Investors?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(6), pages 1052-1064, June.
    17. Li An & Huijun Wang & Jian Wang & Jianfeng Yu, 2015. "Lottery-related anomalies: the role of reference-dependent preferences," Globalization Institute Working Papers 259, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
    18. Darren Duxbury & Robert Hudson & Kevin Keasey & Zhishu Yang & Songyao Yao, 2013. "How prior realized outcomes affect portfolio decisions," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 611-629, November.
    19. Barberis, Nicholas & Xiong, Wei, 2012. "Realization utility," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 251-271.
    20. Grinblatt, Mark & Han, Bing, 2001. "The Disposition Effect and Momentum," University of California at Los Angeles, Anderson Graduate School of Management qt6qg5d62p, Anderson Graduate School of Management, UCLA.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    prospect theory; cross-cultural differences; reference point adaptation; mental accounting;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:pra:mprapa:4009. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.