Theory and Decision

, Volume 75, Issue 2, pp 193–210 | Cite as

Aspirations as reference points: an experimental investigation of risk behavior over time

  • Arvid O. I. Hoffmann
  • Sam F. Henry
  • Nikos Kalogeras
Open Access


This paper examines the importance of aspirations as reference points in a multi-period decision-making context. After stating their personal aspiration level, 172 individuals made six sequential decisions among risky prospects as part of a choice experiment. The results show that individuals make different risky-choices in a multi-period compared to a single-period setting. In particular, individuals’ aspiration level is their main reference point during the early stages of decision-making, while their starting status (wealth level at the start of the experiment) becomes the central reference point during the later stages of their multi-period decision-making.


Aspirations Multi-period decision-making Reference points Risk-behavior Risky-choice 



The authors thank the editor, Mohammed Abdellaoui, for his constructive guidance through the review process. For their comments on previous drafts of this paper and their help in administering the experiment, the authors thank Anne Klesse, Martin Strobel, and seminar participants at Maastricht University’s Behavioral and Experimental Economics Laboratory meetings. We thank Donna Maurer for her editorial assistance. This paper is based on the work done by the second author as part of fulfilling the requirements for obtaining a M.Sc. degree.

Open Access

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


  1. Ackert L. F., Charupat N., Church B. K., Deaves R. (2006) An experimental examination of the house money effect in a multi-period setting. Experimental Economics 9(1): 5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arkes H. R., Hirshleifer D., Jiang D., Lim S. (2008) Reference point adaptation: Tests in the domain of security trading. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105(1): 67–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benartzi S., Thaler R. (1995) Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. Quarterly Journal of Economics 110(1): 73–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bleichrodt H. (2007) Reference-dependent utility with shifting reference points and incomplete preferences. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 51(4): 266–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen M., Etner J., Jeleva M. (2008) Dynamic decision making when risk perception depends on past experience. Theory and Decision 64(2–3): 173–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dellavigna S., LiCalzi M. (2001) Learning to make risk neutral choices in a symmetric world. Mathematical Social Sciences 41(1): 19–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Denrell, J. (2004). Risk taking and aspiration levels: Two alternative null-models. Academy of Management Proceedings, pp.J1–J6.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Endres M. L. (2006) The effectiveness of assigned goals in complex financial decision making and the importance of gender. Theory and Decision 61(2): 129–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fischbacher U. (2007) z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics 10(2): 171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gneezy U., Potters J. (1997) An experiment on risk taking and evaluation periods. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(2): 631–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gooding R. Z., Goel S., Wiseman R. M. (1996) Fixed versus variable reference points in the risk-return relationship. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 29(2): 331–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harrison D. A., McLaughlin M. E., Coalter T. M. (1996) Context, cognition and common method variance: Psychometric and verbal protocol evidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 68(3): 246–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heath C., Larrick R. P., Wu G. (1999) Goals as reference points. Cognitive Psychology 38(1): 79–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heyman J. E., Mellers B., Tishcenko S., Schwartz A. (2005) Shifting reference points and fleeting pleasures. Advances in Consumer Research 32: 116–117Google Scholar
  16. Howard G. S. (1994) Why do people say nasty things about self-reports?. Journal of Organizational Behavior 15(5): 399–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Itami H. (1976) Analysis of implied risk-taking behavior under a goal-based incentive scheme. Management Science 23(2): 183–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2): 263–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lanyon R. I., Goodstein L. D. (1997) Personality Assessment (3rd ed.). Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Lim R. G. (1995) A range-frequency explanation of shifting reference points in risky decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 63(1): 6–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liu H.-H., Colman A. M. (2009) Ambiguity Aversion in the long run: Repeated decisions under risk and uncertainty. Journal of Economic Psychology 30(3): 277–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Loewenstein G. (1987) Anticipation and valuation of delayed consumption. Economic Journal 97(387): 667–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loewenstein G. (1988) Frames of mind in intertemporal choice. Management Science 34(2): 210–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Loewenstein G., Prelec D. (1991) Negative time preference. American Economic Review 81(2): 347–352Google Scholar
  25. Lopes L. L. (1987) hope and fear: The psychology of risk. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 20: 255–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Munro A., Sugden R. (2003) On the theory of reference-dependent preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 50(4): 407–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Odean T., Strahilevitz M., Barber M. B. (2005) Once burned twice shy, this stock has been good to me so far, and it could have been worse: How naïve learning and counterfactuals influence the repurchase of stocks previously sold. Advances in Consumer Research 32: 204Google Scholar
  28. Page L., Garboua L. L., Montmarquette C. (2007) Aspiration levels and educational choices: An experimental study. Economics of Education Review 26(6): 748–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Payne J., Laughhunn D., Crum R. (1980) Translation of Gambles and Aspiration Level Effects in Risky Choice Behavior. Management Science 26(10): 1039–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Porcelli A. J., Delgado M. R. (2009) Acute stress modulates risk taking in financial decision making. Psychological Science 20(3): 278–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rachlin H. (1990) Why do people gamble and keep gambling despite heavy losses?. Psychological Science 1(5): 294–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Samuelson W. P., Zeckhauser R. (1988) Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1(1): 7–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schmidt U. (2003) Reference dependence in cumulative prospect theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 47(2): 122–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shefrin H. (2002) Beyond greed and fear: Understanding behavioral finance and the psychology of investing. Oxford University Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shefrin H., Statman M. (2000) Behavioral portfolio theory. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 35(2): 127–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sugden R. (2003) Reference-dependent subjective expected utility. Journal of Economic Theory 11(2): 172–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sullivan K., Kida T. (1995) The effect of multiple reference points and prior gains and losses on managers’ risky decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 64(1): 76–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thaler R. H., Johnson E. J. (1990) Gambling with the house money and trying to break even. Management Science 36(6): 643–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481): 453–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weber E. U., Milliman R. A. (1997) Perceived risk attitudes: Relating risk perception to risky choice. Management Science 43(2): 123–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weber M., Zuchel H. (2005) How do prior outcomes affect risk attitude? Comparing escalation of commitment and the house-money effect. Decision Analysis 2(1): 30–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zeisberger S., Langer T., Weber M. (2012) Why does myopia decrease the willingness to invest? Is it myopic loss aversion or myopic loss probability aversion?. Theory and Decision 72(1): 35–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arvid O. I. Hoffmann
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sam F. Henry
    • 1
  • Nikos Kalogeras
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Finance, School of Business and EconomicsMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Network for Studies on Pensions, Aging and Retirement (Netspar)TilburgThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, School of Business and EconomicsMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  4. 4.European Center of Corporate Engagement (ECCE), School of Business and EconomicsMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations