Theory and Decision

, Volume 72, Issue 1, pp 35–50 | Cite as

Why does myopia decrease the willingness to invest? Is it myopic loss aversion or myopic loss probability aversion?

  • Stefan Zeisberger
  • Thomas LangerEmail author
  • Martin Weber


For loss averse investors, a sequence of risky investments looks less attractive if it is evaluated myopically—an effect called myopic loss aversion (MLA). The consequences of this effect have been confirmed in several experiments and its robustness is largely undisputed. The effect’s causes, however, have not been thoroughly examined with regard to one important aspect. Due to the construction of the lotteries that were used in the experiments, none of the studies is able to distinguish between MLA and an explanation based on (myopic) loss probability aversion (MLPA). This distinction is important, however, in discussion of the practical relevance and the generalizability of the phenomenon. We designed an experiment that is able to disentangle lottery attractiveness and loss probabilities. Our analysis reveals that mere loss probabilities are not as important in this dynamic context as previous findings in other domains suggest. The results favor the MLA over the MLPA explanation.


Myopic loss aversion Prospect theory Repeated investing Experimental economics 

JEL Classification

D81 G11 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bellemare C., Krause M., Kröger S., Zhang C. (2005) Myopic loss aversion: Information feedback vs. investment flexibility. Economics Letters 87(3): 319–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benartzi S., Thaler R. H. (1995) Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. Quarterly Journal of Economics 110(1): 73–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benartzi S., Thaler R. H. (1999) Risk aversion or myopia? Choices in repeated gambles and retirement investments. Management Science 45(3): 364–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blavatskyy P., Pogrebna G. (2009) Myopic Loss aversion revisited. Economics Letters 104(1): 43–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Diecidue E., van de Ven J. (2008) Aspiration Level, probability of success and failure, and expected utility. International Economic Review 49(2): 683–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Erner, C., Klos, A., Langer, T. (2009). Can prospect theory be used to predict investor’s willingness to pay? Working Paper, University of Münster.Google Scholar
  7. Fellner G., Sutter M. (2009) Causes, consequences, and cures of myopic loss aversion—an experimental investigation. The Economic Journal 119(537): 900–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gneezy U., Kapteyn A., Potters J. (2003) Evaluation periods and asset prices in a market experiment. The Journal of Finance 58(2): 821–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gneezy U., Potters J. (1997) An experiment on risk taking and evaluation periods. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(2): 631–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haigh M.S., List J.A. (2005) Do professional traders exhibit myopic loss aversion? An experimental analysis. The Journal of Finance 60(1): 523–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haisley E., Mostafa R., Loewenstein G. (2008) Myopic risk-seeking: The impact of narrow decision bracketing on lottery play. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 37(1): 57–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hertwig R., Barron G. M., Weber E. U., Erev I. (2008) Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science 15(8): 534–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hopfensitz, A., Wranik, T. (2008). Psychological and environmental determinants of myopic loss aversion. Working Paper, University of Toulouse 1, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
  14. Kahneman D., Lovallo D. (1993) Timid choices and bold forecasts: A cognitive perspective on risk taking. Management Science 39(1): 17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2): 263–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Langer T., Weber M. (2001) Prospect theory, mental accounting, and differences in aggregated and segregated evaluation of lottery portfolios. Management Science 47(5): 716–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Langer T., Weber M. (2005) Myopic prospect theory vs myopic loss aversion: How general is the phenomenon. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 56(1): 25–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Langer T., Weber M. (2008) Does commitment or feedback influence myopic loss aversion? An experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 67(3–4): 810–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Papon T. (2008) The effect of precommitment and past-experience on insurance choices: An experimental study. The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review 33(1): 47–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Payne J. (2005) It is whether you win or lose: The importance of the overall probabilities of winning or losing in risky choice. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 30(1): 5–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Prelec D., Loewenstein G. (1991) Decision making over time and under uncertainty: A common approach. Management Science 37(7): 770–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rabin M., Weizsäcker G. (2009) Narrow bracketing and dominated choices. American Economic Review 99(4): 1508–1543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Redelmeier D. A., Tversky A. (1992) On the framing of multiple prospects. Psychological Science 3(3): 191–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schmidt U., Zank H. (2005) What is loss aversion?. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 30(2): 157–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schmidt U., Zank H. (2008) Risk aversion in cumulative prospect theory. Management Science 54(1): 208–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sutter M. (2007) Are teams prone to myopic loss aversion? An experimental study on individual versus team investment behavior. Economics Letters 97(2): 128–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thaler R. H., Tversky A., Kahneman D., Schwartz A. (1997) The effect of myopia and loss aversion on risk taking: An experimental test. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(2): 647–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5(4): 297–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zeisberger, S., Vrecko, D., & Langer, T. (2011). Measuring the time stability of Prospect Theory preferences. Theory and Decision. doi: 10.1007/s11238-010-9234-3.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Zeisberger
    • 1
  • Thomas Langer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Martin Weber
    • 2
  1. 1.Finance Center MünsterUniversity of MünsterMünsterGermany
  2. 2.Department of Banking and FinanceUniversity of MannheimMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations