The Consequences of Narrow Framing for Risk Taking: A Stress Test of Myopic Loss Aversion

References

• Abbey JD, Meloy MG (2017) Attention by design: Using attention checks to detect inattentive respondents and improve data quality. J. Oper. Management 53–56(1):63–70.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson BF, Settle JW (1996) The influence of portfolio characteristics and investment period on investment choice. J. Econom. Psych. 17(3):343–358.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Austin PC (2009) Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Statist. Medicine 28(25):3083–3107.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barberis N, Huang M, Thaler RH (2006) Individual preferences, monetary gambles, and stock market participation: A case for narrow framing. Amer. Econom. Rev. 96(4):1069–1090.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bellemare C, Krause M, Kröger S, Zhang C (2005) Myopic loss aversion: Information feedback vs. investment flexibility. Econom. Lett. 87(3):319–324.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benartzi S, Thaler RH (1995) Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. Quart. J. Econom. 110(1):73–92.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benartzi S, Thaler RH (1999) Risk aversion or myopia? Choices in repeated gambles and retirement investments. Management Sci. 45(3):364–381.Link, Google Scholar
• Beshears J, Choi JJ, Laibson D, Madrian BC (2017) Does aggregated returns disclosure increase portfolio risk taking? Rev. Financial Stud. 30(6):1971–2005.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bolton P, Samama F (2013) Loyalty-shares: Rewarding long-term investors. J. Appl. Corporate Finance 25(3):86–97.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Borsboom C, Janssen D-J, Strucks M, Zeisberger S (2022) History matters: How short-term price charts hurt investment performance. J. Banking Finance 134:106351.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer CF, Dreber A, Holzmeister F, Ho T-H, Huber J, Johannesson M, Kirchler M, et al. (2018) Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in nature and science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behav. 2(9):637–644.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Gneezy U (2010) Portfolio choice and risk attitudes: An experiment. Econom. Inquiry 48(1):133–146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Gneezy U (2012) Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 83(1):50–58.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chmielewski M, Kucker SC (2020) An MTurk crisis? Shifts in data quality and the impact on study results. Soc. Psych. Personality Sci. 11(4):464–473.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davies R, Haldane AG, Nielsen M, Pezzini S (2014) Measuring the costs of short-termism. J. Financial Stability 12:16–25.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dierkes M, Erner C, Zeisberger S (2010) Investment horizon and the attractiveness of investment strategies: A behavioral approach. J. Banking Finance 340(5):1032–1046.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dohmen T, Falk A, Huffman D, Sunde U, Schupp J, Wagner GG (2011) Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 9(3):522–550.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Downs JS, Holbrook MB, Sheng S, Faith Cranor L (2010) Are your participants gaming the system?: Screening mechanical turk workers. CHI ‘10: Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors Comput. Systems (Association for Computing Machinery, New York), 2399–2402.Google Scholar
• Eriksen KW, Kvaløy O (2010) Myopic investment management. Rev. Finance 14(3):521–542.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fellner G, Sutter M (2009) Causes, consequences, and cures of myopic loss aversion–An experimental investigation. Econom. J. 119(537):900–916.Google Scholar
• Gerhard P, Hoffmann AO, Post T (2017) Past performance framing and investors’ belief updating: Is seeing long-term returns always associated with smaller belief updates? J. Behav. Experiment. Finance 15:38–51.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Potters J (1997) An experiment on risk taking and evaluation periods. Quart. J. Econom. 112(2):631–645.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Kapteyn A, Potters J (2003) Evaluation periods and asset prices in a market experiment. J. Finance 58(2):821–837.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hackethal A, Kirchler M, Laudenbach C, Razen M, Weber A (2023) On the role of monetary incentives in risk preference elicitation experiments. J. Risk Uncertainty 66(2):189–213.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haigh MS, List JA (2005) Do professional traders exhibit myopic loss aversion? An experimental analysis. J. Finance 60(1):523–534.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haisley E, Mostafa R, Loewenstein G (2008) Myopic risk-seeking: The impact of narrow decision bracketing on lottery play. J. Risk Uncertainty 37:57–75.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hardin AM, Looney CA (2012) Myopic loss aversion: Demystifying the key factors influencing decision problem framing. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 117(2):311–331.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holzmeister F, Johannesson M, Böhm R, Dreber A, Huber J, Kirchler M (2024) Heterogeneity in effect size estimates: Empirical evidence and practical implications. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 121(32):e2403490121.Google Scholar
• Huber C, Dreber A, Huber J, Johannesson M, Kirchler M, Weitzel U, Abellán M, et al. (2023) Competition and moral behavior: A meta-analysis of forty-five crowd-sourced experimental designs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 120(23):e2215572120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iqbal K, Islam A, List JA, Nguyen V (2021) Myopic loss aversion and investment decisions: From the laboratory to the field. NBER Working Paper No. 28730, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Lovallo D (1993) Timid choices and bold forecasts: A cognitive perspective on risk taking. Management Sci. 39(1):17–31.Link, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (1984) Choices, values, and frames. Amer. Psychologist 39(4):341–350.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kalda A, Loos B, Previtero A, Hackethal A (2021) Smart (phone) investing? A within investor-time analysis of new technologies and trading behavior. NBER Working Paper No. 28363, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Keren G, Wagenaar WA (1987) Violation of utility theory in unique and repeated gambles. J. Experiment. Psych. 13(3):387–391.Google Scholar
• Klos A (2013) Myopic loss aversion: Potential causes of replication failures. Judgment Decision Making 8(5):617–629.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Landy J, Jia M, Ding I, Viganola D, Collaboration TCHT, Uhlmann E (2020) Crowdsourcing hypothesis tests: Making transparent how design choices shape research results. Psych. Bull. 146(5):451–479.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Langer T, Weber M (2005) Myopic prospect theory vs. myopic loss aversion: How general is the phenomenon? J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 56(1):25–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Langer T, Weber M (2008) Does commitment or feedback influence myopic loss aversion?: An experimental analysis. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 67(3–4):810–819.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Larson F, List JA, Metcalfe RD (2016) Can myopic loss aversion explain the equity premium puzzle? Evidence from a natural field experiment with professional traders. NBER Working Paper No. 22605, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Looney CA, Hardin AM (2009) Decision support for retirement portfolio management: Overcoming myopic loss aversion via technology design. Management Sci. 55(10):1688–1703.Link, Google Scholar
• Looney CA, Hardin AM (2020) Beyond myopia: Wealth accumulation mechanisms and evolving risk behaviors. Decision 7(2):163–181.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Menkveld AJ, Dreber A, Holzmeister F, Huber J, Johannesson M, Kirchler M, Razen M, et al. (2024) Non-standard errors. J. Finance 79(3):2339–2390.Crossref, Google Scholar
• NOW Corpus (2024) Now corpus. Accessed September 19, 2024, https://english-corpora.org/now.Google Scholar
• Papon T (2008) The effect of pre-commitment and past-experience on insurance choices: An experimental study. Geneva Risk Insurance Rev. 33:47–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ponti G, Tomás J (2021) Diminishing marginal myopic loss aversion: A stress test on investment games experiments. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 190:125–133.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Read D, Loewenstein G, Rabin M, Keren G, Laibson D (2000) Choice bracketing. J. Risk Uncertainty 19:171–197.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Redelmeier DA, Tversky A (1992) On the framing of multiple prospects. Psych. Sci. 3(3):191–193.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schwaiger R, Hueber L (2021) Do MTurkers exhibit myopic loss aversion? Econom. Lett. 209:110137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shaton M (2017) The display of information and household investment behavior. Preprint, submitted April 20, http://dx.doi.org/10.17016/FEDS.2017.043.Google Scholar
• Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U (2011) False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psych. Sci. 22(11):1359–1366.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonsohn U, Simmons JP, Nelson LD (2020) Specification curve analysis. Nature Human Behav. 4(11):1208–1214.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sutter M (2007) Are teams prone to myopic loss aversion? An experimental study on individual versus team investment behavior. Econom. Lett. 97(2):128–132.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thaler R (1985) Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Sci. 4(3):199–214.Link, Google Scholar
• Thaler R, Tversky A, Kahneman D, Schwartz A (1997) The effect of myopia and loss aversion on risk taking: An experimental test. Quart. J. Econom. 112(2):647–661.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty 5:297–323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van der Heijden E, Klein TJ, Müller W, Potters J (2012) Framing effects and impatience: Evidence from a large scale experiment. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 84:701–711.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Venkatraman S, Aloysius JA, Davis FD (2006) Multiple prospect framing and decision behavior: The mediational roles of perceived riskiness and perceived ambiguity. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 101(1):59–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walasek L, Mullett TL, Stewart N (2018) A meta-analysis of loss aversion in risky contexts. Preprint, submitted June 17, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3189088.Google Scholar
• Wendy W, Asri M (2012) Psychological biases in investment decisions: An experimental study of myopic behavior in developing capital markets. J. Indonesian Econom. Bus. 27(2):143–158.Google Scholar
• Wicherts JM, Veldkamp CLS, Augusteijn HEM, Bakker M, van Aert RCM, van Assen MALM (2016) Degrees of freedom in planning, running, analyzing, and reporting psychological studies: A checklist to avoid p-hacking. Front. Psych. 7:1832.Google Scholar
• Zhang Z, Kim HJ, Lonjon G, Zhu Y (2018) Balance diagnostics after propensity score matching. Ann. Translational Medicine 7(1):16.Crossref, Google Scholar