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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Justin Valasek & Pauline Vorjohann & Weijia Wang & Justin Mattias Valasek, 2024. "Fairness Preferences, Inequality Acceptance and Default Effects," CESifo Working Paper Series 11288, CESifo.
    5. 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. Justin Valasek & Weijia Wang & Justin Mattias Valasek, 2025. "Fair Institutions," CESifo Working Paper Series 11804, CESifo.
    2. Wang, Weijia & Valasek, Justin, 2025. "Fair Institutions," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 8/2025, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    3. 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).
    4. 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).
    5. Wettstein, Dominik J. & Boes, Stefan, 2022. "How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 112-121.
    6. Brocas, Isabelle & Carrillo, Juan D. & Combs, T. Dalton & Kodaverdian, Niree, 2019. "The development of consistent decision-making across economic domains," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 217-240.
    7. Decker, Torsten & Stiehler, Andreas & Strobel, Martin, 2002. "A Comparison of Punishment Rules in Repeated Public Good Games - An Experimental Study," Research Memorandum 020, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    8. Dohmen, Thomas & Meyer, Frauke & Walkowitz, Gari, 2026. "Basic Needs Satisfaction as a Fundamental Distributive Principle: Evidence from the Lab and the Field," IZA Discussion Papers 18409, IZA Network @ LISER.
    9. Seema Kacker & Tin Aung & Dominic Montagu & David Bishai, 2021. "Providers preferences towards greater patient health benefit is associated with higher quality of care," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 271-294, September.
    10. Emin Karagözoğlu & Elif Tosun, 2022. "Endogenous Game Choice and Giving Behavior in Distribution Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-32, November.
    11. Moreno, Alejandro & Viianto, Lari & García, Daniel, 2019. "Emotions of Altruism, Envy and Guilt: Experimental Evidence," MPRA Paper 94096, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Robert Dur & Jan Tichem, 2015. "Altruism and Relational Incentives in the Workplace," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(3), pages 485-500, September.
    13. Ek, Claes, 2017. "Some causes are more equal than others? The effect of similarity on substitution in charitable giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 45-62.
    14. Douglas D. Davis & Edward L. Millner, 2005. "Rebates, Matches, and Consumer Behavior," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(2), pages 410-421, October.
    15. Paskalev, Zdravko & Yildirim, Huseyin, 2017. "A theory of outsourced fundraising: Why dollars turn into “Pennies for Charity”," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 1-18.
    16. Ubeda, Paloma, 2014. "The consistency of fairness rules: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 88-100.
    17. Yacine Ait-Sahalia & Jonathan A. Parker & Motohiro Yogo, 2001. "Luxury Goods and the Equity Premium," NBER Working Papers 8417, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Frank Cowell & Marc Fleurbaey & Bertil Tungodden, 2015. "The tyranny puzzle in social preferences: an empirical investigation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 765-792, December.
    19. Chavanne, David & McCabe, Kevin & Paganelli, Maria Pia, 2011. "Whose money is it anyway? Ingroups and distributive behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 31-39, January.
    20. Cabeza Martínez, Begoña, 2023. "Social preferences, support for redistribution, and attitudes towards vulnerable groups," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).

    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.