Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
David Gal (2006) argued that many of the phenomena commonly attributed to loss aversion, including the status quo bias, the endowment effect, and the preference for safe over risky options, are more parsimoniously explained by psychological inertia than by a loss/gain asymmetry. Gal and Rucker (2018) made similar arguments.
Benartzi & Thaler (1995) contend that the equity premium puzzle can be explained by myopic loss aversion and their explanation is based on Kahneman and Tversky's prospect theory. [18] They rely on two assumptions about decision-making to support theory; loss aversion and mental accounting. [18]
When prospect theory was added to a previously existing model that was attempting to explain consumer behavior during auctions, out-of-sample predictions were shown to be more accurate than a corresponding expected utility model. Specifically, prospect theory was boiled down to certain elements: preference, loss aversion and probability weighting.
Loss aversion is a cognitive bias that seeks to explain why people consider losses to be more significant than an equivalent gain. In the financial world, this term is used to explain why ...
Loss aversion is also what leads investors to hold on to underperforming investments longer than they’re useful, refusing to “cut their losses” and move on to a better prospect until they ...
The leading explanation for the aforementioned WTP-WTA gap is that of loss aversion. It was first linked by Kahneman and his colleagues that selling an endowment means the loss of the object, and as humans are aligned to be more loss-averse , less utility is obtained from acquirement of the same endowment. [ 4 ]
Loss aversion, where the perceived disutility of giving up an object is greater than the utility associated with acquiring it. [74] (see also Sunk cost fallacy) Pseudocertainty effect, the tendency to make risk-averse choices if the expected outcome is positive, but make risk-seeking choices to avoid negative outcomes. [75]
The loss aversion explanation for the status quo bias has been challenged by David Gal and Derek Rucker who argue that evidence for loss aversion (i.e., a tendency to avoid losses more than to pursue gains) is confounded with a tendency towards inertia (a tendency to avoid intervention more than to intervene in the course of affairs). [23]