Loss Aversion and Gain Appetite in the Small and in the Large

R. Bordley, L. Tibiletti, M. Uberti
{"title":"Loss Aversion and Gain Appetite in the Small and in the Large","authors":"R. Bordley, L. Tibiletti, M. Uberti","doi":"10.12988/IMF.2016.6558","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In their pioneering works on prospect theory Kahneman and Tversky (1979, 1992) propose the ground-breaking idea that in making decisions under risk individuals evaluate asymmetrically losses and gains against to a personal reference point. According to the Kahneman and Tversky (1979) statement “losses loom larger than gains”, individuals display loss aversion. However, Sacchi and Stanca (2014) argue that people may exhibit gain appetite that states that “gains loom larger than losses”. Although the prospect theory can be traced back of more than thirty years, how to formalize asymmetrical preferences to a reference point is still an open issue (see Abdellaoui et al., 2007; and Ghossoub, 2012). In this short note we set a preference-based definition for loss aversion, gain appetite and equally weighted preferences “in the small”, i.e. for outcomes around a given reference point; and “in the large”, i.e. for any outcome of the domain. The classical Kahneman and Tversky (1979, page 279) loss aversion definition follows as a special case.","PeriodicalId":36243,"journal":{"name":"Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.12988/IMF.2016.6558","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12988/IMF.2016.6558","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In their pioneering works on prospect theory Kahneman and Tversky (1979, 1992) propose the ground-breaking idea that in making decisions under risk individuals evaluate asymmetrically losses and gains against to a personal reference point. According to the Kahneman and Tversky (1979) statement “losses loom larger than gains”, individuals display loss aversion. However, Sacchi and Stanca (2014) argue that people may exhibit gain appetite that states that “gains loom larger than losses”. Although the prospect theory can be traced back of more than thirty years, how to formalize asymmetrical preferences to a reference point is still an open issue (see Abdellaoui et al., 2007; and Ghossoub, 2012). In this short note we set a preference-based definition for loss aversion, gain appetite and equally weighted preferences “in the small”, i.e. for outcomes around a given reference point; and “in the large”, i.e. for any outcome of the domain. The classical Kahneman and Tversky (1979, page 279) loss aversion definition follows as a special case.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
小公司和大公司的损失厌恶和收益偏好
Kahneman和Tversky(1979,1992)在他们关于前景理论的开创性著作中提出了突破性的观点,即在风险决策中,个体根据个人参考点不对称地评估损失和收益。根据卡尼曼和特沃斯基(1979)的陈述“损失比收益更大”,个体表现出损失厌恶。然而,Sacchi和Stanca(2014)认为,人们可能会表现出“收益大于损失”的收益偏好。尽管前景理论可以追溯到三十多年前,但如何将不对称偏好正式化到一个参考点仍然是一个悬而未决的问题(见Abdellaoui et al., 2007;and Ghossoub, 2012)。在这篇短文中,我们为损失厌恶、收益偏好和“小范围”的均等加权偏好设定了一个基于偏好的定义,即在给定参考点附近的结果;以及“in the large”,即对于域的任何结果。卡尼曼和特沃斯基(1979,第279页)的经典损失厌恶定义是一个特例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pollution Haven and Corruption Paradise Loss Aversion and Gain Appetite in the Small and in the Large Vertical Differentiation and Labour in a General Equilibrium Model Intellectual Property Law Harmonization within and Beyond Europe: Achievements and Future Challenges Language, Copyright and Geographic Segmentation in the EU Digital, Single Market for Music and Film
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1