No Evidence for Loss Aversion Disappearance and Reversal in Walasek and Stewart (2015)

被引:9
作者
Andre, Quentin [1 ]
de Langhe, Bart [2 ]
机构
[1] Erasmus Univ, Rotterdam Sch Management, Rotterdam, Netherlands
[2] Univ Ramon Llull, ESADE, Dept Mkt, Barcelona, Spain
关键词
loss aversion; decision by sampling; mixed gambles; experimental design; ASPIRATION LEVEL; PROSPECT-THEORY; DECISION; CHOICE; PROBABILITY;
D O I
10.1037/xge0001052
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Loss aversion-the idea that losses loom larger than equivalent gains-is one of the most important ideas in Behavioral Economics. In an influential article published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Walasek and Stewart (2015) test an implication of decision by sampling theory: Loss aversion can disappear, and even reverse, depending on the distribution of gains and losses people have encountered. In this article, we show that the pattern of results reported in Walasek and Stewart (2015) should not be taken as evidence that loss aversion can disappear and reverse, or that decision by sampling is the origin of loss aversion. It emerges because the estimates of loss aversion are computed on different lotteries in different conditions. In other words, the experimental paradigm violates measurement invariance, and is invalid. We show that analyzing only the subset of lotteries that are common across conditions eliminates the pattern of results. We note that other recently published articles use similar experimental designs, and we discuss general implications for empirical examinations of utility functions.
引用
收藏
页码:2659 / 2665
页数:7
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]   Reexamining How Utility and Weighting Functions Get Their Shapes: A Quasi-Adversarial Collaboration Providing a New Interpretation [J].
Alempaki, Despoina ;
Canic, Emina ;
Mullett, Timothy L. ;
Skylark, William J. ;
Starmer, Chris ;
Stewart, Neil ;
Tufano, Fabio .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2019, 65 (10) :4841-4862
[2]   Decision by Sampling Implements Efficient Coding of Psychoeconomic Functions [J].
Bhui, Rahul ;
Gershman, Samuel J. .
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2018, 125 (06) :985-1001
[3]  
de Langhe B, 2019, NO EVIDENCE LOSS AVE
[4]   Bang for the Buck: Gain-Loss Ratio as a Driver of Judgment and Choice [J].
de Langhe, Bart ;
Puntoni, Stefano .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2015, 61 (05) :1137-1163
[5]   Aspiration level, probability of success and failure, and expected utility [J].
Diecidue, Enrico ;
van de Ven, Jeroen .
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2008, 49 (02) :683-700
[6]  
Ert E, 2013, JUDGM DECIS MAK, V8, P214
[7]   The Loss of Loss Aversion: Will It Loom Larger Than Its Gain? [J].
Gal, David ;
Rucker, Derek D. .
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY, 2018, 28 (03) :497-516
[8]   A Comparison of Approaches o Advertising Measurement: Evidence from Big Field Experiments at Facebook [J].
Gordon, Brett R. ;
Zettelmeyer, Florian ;
Bhargava, Neha ;
Chapsky, Dan .
MARKETING SCIENCE, 2019, 38 (02) :193-225
[9]   PROSPECT THEORY - ANALYSIS OF DECISION UNDER RISK [J].
KAHNEMAN, D ;
TVERSKY, A .
ECONOMETRICA, 1979, 47 (02) :263-291
[10]   A model of reference-dependent preferences [J].
Koszegi, Botond ;
Rabin, Matthew .
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 2006, 121 (04) :1133-1165