Psychological and environmental determinants of myopic loss aversion
Each economic actor is characterized by his own evaluations, traits, and strategies. Although heterogeneity of economic actors is widely acknowledged, little is known about the factors causing it. In this paper, we will examine the behavioral bias known as myopic loss aversion, and the environmental and psychological factors leading to different behavioral reactions. Myopic loss aversion has been used to suggest that fund managers should reveal information only rarely, to lead investors to choose options with (on average) higher returns. Specifically, we experimentally studied the impact of experience, individual differences, and emotions on behavioral responses to feedback frequency in an investment setting. Participants made investment decisions in one of three feedback frequency conditions: (1) they received feedback after each round and had the opportunity to make investment changes each time; (2) they received feedback after each round, but were only given the possibility to make changes every three rounds; and (3) they received aggregated feedback every three rounds, and also had the opportunity to make changes every three rounds. We collected information about personality and individual difference factors before the experiment. Finally, evaluations and emotions were measured every three rounds, immediately after feedback was given. We hypothesized that myopic loss aversion is not a general phenomenon, but that stable individual differences lead to different evaluations and emotional reactions concerning feedback. This implies that myopic loss aversion will only be present for some groups of people under certain conditions. As predicted, we found that myopic loss aversion is not generally observed; rather, we found both an experience effect and a personality effect. In particular, myopic loss aversion was particularly likely: (1) when initial investment rounds lead to negative investment experiences (i.e., losses); and (2) for investors with low self-efficacy concerning the investment situation. ‘Self efficacy’ is related to a personality profile characterized by confidence in decision-making abilities, high optimism, and low anxiety. Our results may help explain which individual and situational factors lead to myopic loss aversion, and should help researchers and practitioners provide optimal feedback to different types of investment clients.
|Date of creation:||2008|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Uri Gneezy & Arie Kapteyn & Jan Potters, 2003.
"Evaluation Periods and Asset Prices in a Market Experiment,"
Journal of Finance,
American Finance Association, vol. 58(2), pages 821-838, 04.
- Gneezy, U. & Kapteyn, A. & Potters, J.J.M., 2002. "Evaluation Periods and Asset Prices in a Market Experiment," Discussion Paper 2002-8, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Uri Gneezy & Arie Kapteyn & Jan Potters, 2002. "Evaluation Periods and Assett Prices in a Market Experiment," Working Papers 02-02, RAND Corporation Publications Department.
- Mehra, Rajnish & Prescott, Edward C., 1985.
"The equity premium: A puzzle,"
Journal of Monetary Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 145-161, March.
- Gneezy, U. & Potters, J.J.M., 1996.
"An experiment on risk taking and evaluation periods,"
1996-61, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Gneezy, Uri & Potters, Jan, 1997. "An Experiment on Risk Taking and Evaluation Periods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 112(2), pages 631-45, May.
- Gneezy, U. & Potters, J.J.M., 1997. "An experiment on risk taking and evaluation periods," Other publications TiSEM da6ba1bf-e15c-41b2-ae95-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
- Haigh, Michael S. & List, John A., 2002.
"Do Professional Traders Exhibit Myopic Loss Aversion? An Experimental Analysis,"
28554, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
- Michael S. Haigh & John A. List, 2005. "Do Professional Traders Exhibit Myopic Loss Aversion? An Experimental Analysis," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(1), pages 523-534, 02.
- John List & Michael Haigh, 2005. "Do professional traders exhibit myopic loss aversion? An experimental analysis," Artefactual Field Experiments 00052, The Field Experiments Website.
- Astrid Hopfensitz & Frans van Winden, 2006.
"Dynamic Choice, Independence and Emotions,"
Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers
06-087/1, Tinbergen Institute.
- Ben-Shakhar, Gershon & Bornstein, Gary & Hopfensitz, Astrid & van Winden, Frans, 2007. "Reciprocity and emotions in bargaining using physiological and self-report measures," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 314-323, June.
- Langer, Thomas & Weber, Martin, 2008. "Does commitment or feedback influence myopic loss aversion?: An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(3-4), pages 810-819, September.
- Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
- Benartzi, Shlomo & Thaler, Richard H, 1995.
"Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
MIT Press, vol. 110(1), pages 73-92, February.
- Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1993. "Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle," NBER Working Papers 4369, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Haltiwanger, John & Waldman, Michael, 1991.
"Responders versus Non-responders: A New Perspective on Heterogeneity,"
Royal Economic Society, vol. 101(408), pages 1085-1102, September.
- John Haltiwanger, 1987. "Responders Versus Nonresponders: A New Perspective on Heterogeneity," UCLA Economics Working Papers 436, UCLA Department of Economics.
- John Haltiwanger & Michael Waldman, 1983.
"Rational Expectations and the Limits of Rationality: An Analysis of Heterogeneity,"
UCLA Economics Working Papers
303, UCLA Department of Economics.
- Haltiwanger, John & Waldman, Michael, 1985. "Rational Expectations and the Limits of Rationality: An Analysis of Heterogeneity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 326-40, June.
- Brad M. Barber & Terrance Odean, 2001. "Boys Will Be Boys: Gender, Overconfidence, And Common Stock Investment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 116(1), pages 261-292, February.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7656, David K. Levine.
- Thaler, Richard H, et al, 1997. "The Effect of Myopia and Loss Aversion on Risk Taking: An Experimental Test," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 112(2), pages 647-61, May.
- Robert Axtell, 2007. "What economic agents do: How cognition and interaction lead to emergence and complexity," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 105-122, September.
- 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:9305. 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: (Ekkehart Schlicht)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.