Theory and Decision

, Volume 74, Issue 3, pp 411–429 | Cite as

Do financial professionals behave according to prospect theory? An experimental study

  • Mohammed Abdellaoui
  • Han BleichrodtEmail author
  • Hilda Kammoun
Open Access


Prospect theory is increasingly used to explain deviations from the traditional paradigm of rational agents. Empirical support for prospect theory comes mainly from laboratory experiments using student samples. It is obviously important to know whether and to what extent this support generalizes to more naturally occurring circumstances. This article explores this question and measures prospect theory for a sample of private bankers and fund managers. We obtained clear support for prospect theory. Our financial professionals behaved according to prospect theory and violated expected utility maximization. They were risk averse for gains and risk seeking for losses and their utility was concave for gains and (slightly) convex for losses. They were also averse to losses, but less so than commonly observed in laboratory studies and assumed in behavioral finance. A substantial minority focused on gains and largely ignored losses, behavior reminiscent of what caused the current financial crisis.


Prospect theory Loss aversion Field data Behavioral finance Experimental economics 

JEL Classification

D81 G11 



Mohammed Abdellaoui’s research was supported by a grant from Agence Nationale de la Recherche (Risk Attitude Project), France. Han Bleichrodt’s research was made possible by a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). Nick Barberis, Jan Boone, Olivier l’Haridon, Tobias Klein, Charles Noussair, Jan Potters, Martijn van den Assem, and Peter Wakker gave helpful comments.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.


  1. Abdellaoui M.: Parameter-free elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions. Management Science 46, 1497–1512 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abdellaoui M., Barrios C., Wakker P. P.: Reconciling introspective utility with revealed preference: Experimental arguments based on prospect theory. Journal of Econometrics 138, 356–378 (2007a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abdellaoui M., Bleichrodt H., Paraschiv C.: Measuring loss aversion under prospect theory: A parameter-free approach. Management Science 53, 1659–1674 (2007b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barberis N., Huang M.: Mental accounting, loss aversion, and individual stock returns. Journal of Finance 56, 1247–1292 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barberis N., Huang M., Santos T.: Prospect theory and asset prices. Quarterly Journal of Economics 66, 1–53 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barberis N., Xiong W.: What drives the disposition effect? An analysis of a long-standing preference-based explanation. Journal of Finance 64, 751–784 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bardsley N., Cubitt R., Loomes G., Moffatt P., Starmer C., Sugden R.: Experimental economics: Rethinking the rules. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2010)Google Scholar
  8. Beattie J., Loomes G.: The impact of incentives upon risky choice experiments. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 14, 155–168 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benartzi S., Thaler R. H.: Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. Quarterly Journal of Economics 110, 73–92 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Binswanger H. P.: Attitude toward risk: Experimental measurement in rural India. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 62, 395–407 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bleichrodt H., Pinto J. L.: A parameter-free elicitation of the probability weighting function in medical decision analysis. Management Science 46, 1485–1496 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Booij A. S., van de Kuilen G.: A parameter-free analysis of the utility of money for the general population under prospect theory. Journal of Economic Psychology 30, 651–666 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bostic R., Herrnstein R. J., Luce R. D.: The effect on the preference reversal of using choice indifferences. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 13, 193–212 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Camerer C. F., Babcock L., Loewenstein G. F., Thaler R. H.: Labor supply of New York City cabdrivers: One day at a time. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112, 407–442 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Camerer C. F., Hogarth R. M.: The effects of financial incentives in experiments: A review and capital-labor-production framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19, 7–42 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coval J. D., Shumway T.: Do behavioral biases affect prices?. Journal of Finance 60, 1–34 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gneezy U., Kapteyn A., Potters J.: Evaluation periods and asset prices in a market experiment. Journal of Finance 58, 821–837 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gneezy U., Potters J.: An experiment on risk taking and evaluation periods. Quarterly Journal of Economics 102, 631–645 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gonzalez R., Wu G.: On the form of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psychology 38, 129–166 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gurevich G., Kliger D., Levy O.: Decision-making under uncertainty: A field study of cumulative prospect theory. Journal of Banking and Finance 33, 1221–1229 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haigh M., List J. A.: Do professional traders exhibit myopic loss aversion? An experimental analysis. Journal of Finance 60, 523–534 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hertwig R., Ortmann A.: Experimental practices in economics: A methodological challenge for psychologists?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24, 383–451 (2001)Google Scholar
  23. Holt C. A., Laury S. K.: Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review 92, 1644–1655 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kahneman D., Tversky A.: Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47, 263–291 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kliger D., Levy O.: Theories of choice under risk: Insights from financial markets. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 71, 330–346 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Köbberling V., Wakker P. P.: An index of loss aversion. Journal of Economic Theory 122, 119–131 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. List J. A.: Does market experience eliminate market anomalies?. Quarterly Journal of Economics 118, 41–71 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Myagkov M., Plott C. R.: Exchange economies and loss exposure: Experiments exploring prospect theory and competitive equilibria in market environments. American Economic Review 87, 801–828 (1997)Google Scholar
  29. Rabin M.: Risk aversion and expected-utility theory: A calibration theorem. Econometrica 68, 1281–1292 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stott H. P.: Cumulative prospect theory’s functional menagerie. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 32, 101–130 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thaler R. H., Tversky A., Kahneman D., Schwartz A.: The effect of myopia and loss aversion on risk taking: An experimental test. Quarterly Journal of Economics 102, 647–661 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tom S. M., Fox C. R., Trepel C., Poldrack R. A.: The neural basis of loss aversion in decision-making under risk. Science 315, 515–518 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tversky A., Kahneman D.: Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 297–323 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. van de Kuilen G., Wakker P. P.: Learning in the Allais paradox. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 33, 155–164 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wakker P. P., Tversky A.: An axiomatization of cumulative prospect theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7, 147–176 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammed Abdellaoui
    • 1
  • Han Bleichrodt
    • 2
    Email author
  • Hilda Kammoun
    • 1
  1. 1.HECParisFrance
  2. 2.Erasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations