IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwwuw/wuwp382.html

Third party loss aversion reduces spectator redistribution

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Keinprecht

    (Department of Economics, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business)

Abstract

The growing inequalities around the world are becoming increasingly alarming making redistribution more relevant than ever. One reason why people may oppose redistribution is third party loss aversion. In a pre-registered online experiment with a within-subjects design, I show that redistribution decisions by third parties are affected by loss aversion. Overall, spectators are 7%-points less likely to redistribute from a status quo to an alternative if the alternative entails a loss for one person, even if inequality aversion, maximin preferences and efficiency concerns favor the alternative. This effect is stronger the higher the loss is compared to the gain and the higher the individual loss aversion of the spectator. The key contribution of the paper is to disentangle third party loss aversion from pure status quo bias, rank reversal aversion and other distributional preferences in multiple loss scenarios and to link it to individual loss aversion.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Keinprecht, 2025. "Third party loss aversion reduces spectator redistribution," Department of Economics Working Papers wuwp382, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwwuw:wuwp382
    Note: PDF Document
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://research.wu.ac.at/ws/portalfiles/portal/76570818/WP382.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Justin Valasek & Pauline Vorjohann & Weijia Wang, 2024. "Fairness Preferences, Inequality Acceptance and Default Effects," CESifo Working Paper Series 11288, CESifo.
    2. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    3. Valasek, Justin & Vorjohann, Pauline & Wang, Weijia, 2024. "Fairness Preferences and Default Effects," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 9/2024, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    4. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Corina Paraschiv, 2007. "Loss Aversion Under Prospect Theory: A Parameter-Free Measurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(10), pages 1659-1674, October.
    5. David Blake & Edmund Cannon & Douglas Wright, 2025. "Correction: Quantifying loss aversion: Evidence from a UK population survey," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 71(3), pages 293-295, December.
    6. James Andreoni & John Miller, 2002. "Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 737-753, March.
    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. Laura Hueber & Rene Schwaiger, 2021. "Debiasing Through Experience Sampling: The Case of Myopic Loss Aversion," Working Papers 2021-01, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    2. Hopfensitz, Astrid, 2009. "Previous outcomes and reference dependence: A meta study of repeated investment tasks with and without restricted feedback," MPRA Paper 16096, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Justin Valasek & Weijia Wang, 2025. "Fair Institutions," CESifo Working Paper Series 11804, CESifo.
    4. Katarzyna Werner & Horst Zank, 2012. "Foundations for Prospect Theory Through Probability Midpoint Consistency," Economics Discussion Paper Series 1210, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    5. Werner Güth & M. Vittoria Levati & Matteo Ploner, 2008. "On The Social Dimension Of Time And Risk Preferences: An Experimental Study," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 46(2), pages 261-272, April.
    6. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.
    7. Simon Gächter & Eric J. Johnson & Andreas Herrmann, 2022. "Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 599-624, April.
    8. Jérôme Boutang & Michel de Lara, 2016. "Risk Marketing," Working Papers hal-01353821, HAL.
    9. Alex Markle & George Wu & Rebecca White & Aaron Sackett, 2018. "Goals as reference points in marathon running: A novel test of reference dependence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 19-50, February.
    10. Martyna Kobus & Radoslaw Kurek & Thomas Parker, 2024. "Ranking Policies Under Loss Aversion and Inequality Aversion," Working Papers 59, Institute of Economics, Polish Academy of Sciences.
    11. Wang, Weijia & Valasek, Justin, 2025. "Fair Institutions," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 8/2025, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    12. Eyal Ert & Ido Erev, 2010. "On the Descriptive Value of Loss Aversion in Decisions under Risk," Harvard Business School Working Papers 10-056, Harvard Business School.
    13. Tomasz Potocki, 2012. "Cumulative Prospect Theory as a model of economic rationality," Ekonomia journal, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, vol. 31.
    14. Nikoloski, M. & Botzen, W.J.W. & Banerjee, S. & Blasch, J., 2025. "Clustering Dutch citizens into behavioural phenotypes to understand green energy investment preferences," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 255(C).
    15. Deck, Cary & Kimbrough, Erik O., 2013. "Do market incentives crowd out charitable giving?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 16-24.
    16. Matthew Gould & Matthew D. Rablen, 2019. "Are World Leaders Loss Averse?," CESifo Working Paper Series 7763, CESifo.
    17. Vincze, János & Koltay, Gábor, 2009. "Fogyasztói döntések a viselkedési közgazdaságtan szemszögéből [Consumer decisions from the angle of behavioural economics]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(6), pages 495-525.
    18. Julia Blasch & Claudio Daminato, 2018. "Behavioral anomalies and energy-related individual choices: the role of status-quo bias," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 18/300, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    19. Thomas, Ranjeeta & Galizzi, Matteo M. & Moorhouse, Louisa & Nyamukapa, Constance & Hallett, Timothy B., 2024. "Do risk, time and prosocial preferences predict risky sexual behaviour of youths in a low-income, high-risk setting?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    20. Messer, Kent D. & Zarghamee, Homa & Kaiser, Harry M. & Schulze, William D., 2007. "New hope for the voluntary contributions mechanism: The effects of context," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(9), pages 1783-1799, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement

    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:wiw:wiwwuw:wuwp382. 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: Department of Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.wu.ac.at/economics/en .

    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.