Kahneman and Tversky’s Prospect Concept posit that people have loss aversion. What’s loss aversion?
It implies that people expertise losses extra intensely than beneficial properties of the identical magnitude; for example, the psychological impression of dropping a sure sum of money is bigger than the pleasure derived from gaining that very same quantity. A key query is how a lot extra intensely to people expertise beneficial properties than losses?
To formalize issues, prospect principle assumes the next utility operate:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b4b73/b4b7368e2c656dc46dee663a4d8ae18f4feb38c8" alt="Empirical Estimates of Loss Aversion – Healthcare Economist Empirical Estimates of Loss Aversion – Healthcare Economist"
Probably the most broadly cited estimates are for these parameters are from Tversky and Kahneman (1992). In that paper they discover that loss aversion λ=2.25, and α=β=0.88. We will plot the utility operate with this parameterization on the graph under as follows.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/703c9/703c9b8dfc6bc972335d73c0356f2a95a658019c" alt=""
One key difficulty, nonetheless, is that the Tversky and Kahneman (1992) loss aversion estimates got here from a single examine of 25 graduate college students from an elite American college. How generalizable are these outcomes? Is there a greater estimate of loss aversion on the market?
A paper Brown et al. (2024) goals to reply this query by conducting a meta-analysis of loss aversion estimates from all research printed between 1992 and 2017. They discovered 607 empirical estimates of loss aversion throughout 150 articles. The research got here from a wide range of disciplines (e.g., economics, psychology, neuroscience) and a wide range of information varieties. Most research (53%) relied on a lab experiment design, however 26.5% of articles recognized got here from a discipline experiment of different discipline information; 42% of the research got here from Europe and 30% got here from North America.
The unadjusted outcomes (proven under) estimated a median loss aversion of 1.69 and imply loss aversion of 1.97. After making use of a random results meta-analytic distribution, the imply loss aversion coefficient was discovered to be 1.955 with a 95% chance that the true worth falls between 1.820 and a couple of.102.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/04e82/04e82f7eae06c658d019b80b181ce1d9da68e0da" alt=""
These outcomes are considerably decrease, however not disimilar to the Tversky and Kahneman (1992) estimate of two.25. We will additionally evaluate the outcomes to 2 earlier meta-analysis research of loss aversion. Neumann and Böckenholt 2014–which examined los aversion utilizing 33 research about shopper model selection–reported a base mannequin estimate of λ = 1.49 and an “enhanced mannequin” estimate of λ = 1.73; Walasek, Mullett, and Stewart (2018)–which examined 17 research of gain-loss monetary lotteries–estimated that λ = 1.31. Briefly, the Brown et al. outcomes are increased than earlier estimates, however decrease than Tversky and Kahneman.
You’ll be able to learn the total paper right here.
Key References
- Brown, Alexander L., Taisuke Imai, Ferdinand M. Vieider, and Colin F. Camerer. “Meta-analysis of empirical estimates of loss aversion.” Journal of Financial Literature 62, no. 2 (2024): 485-516.
- Neumann, Nico, and Ulf Böckenholt. 2014. “A Meta-Evaluation of Loss Aversion in Product Alternative.” Journal of Retailing 90 (2): 182–97.
- Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1992. “Advances in Prospect Concept: Cumulative Illustration of Uncertainty.” Journal of Threat and Uncertainty 5 (4): 297–323.
- Walasek, Lukasz, Timothy L. Mullett, and Neil Stewart. 2018. “A Meta-Evaluation of Loss Aversion in Dangerous Contexts.” http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3189088.