Skip to main content

Reevaluating evidence on myopic loss aversion: aggregate patterns versus individual choices

Abstract

Investors who are more willing to accept risks when evaluating their investments less frequently are said to exhibit myopic loss aversion (MLA). Several recent experimental studies found that, on average, subjects bet significantly higher amounts on a risky lottery when they observe only a cumulative outcome of several realizations of the lottery (long evaluation period). In this article, we reexamine these empirical findings by analyzing individual rather than aggregate choice patterns. The behavior of the majority of subjects is inconsistent with the hypothesis of MLA: they bet an intermediate fraction of their initial endowment and these bets, on average, are not significantly different across two treatments with short and long evaluation period. We discuss several alternative explanations of this finding, including the Fechner model of random errors and the financial asset pricing model.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Abdellaoui M. (2000) Parameter-free elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions. Management Science 46(11): 1497–1512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellemare Ch., Krause M., Kröger S., Zhang Ch. (2005) Myopic loss aversion: Information feedback vs. investment flexibility. Economics Letters 87: 319–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benartzi S., Thaler R. (1995) Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. Quarterly Journal of Economics 110(1): 73–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhushan R., Brown D., Mello A. (1997) Do noise traders ‘create their own space?’. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 32(1): 25–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blavatskyy P. (2008) Stochastic utility theorem. Journal of Mathematical Economics 44: 1049–1056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blavatskyy, P. R., & Köhler, W. R. (2009). Range effects and lottery pricing. Experimental Economics. doi:10.1007/s10683-009-9215-y.

  • Coval J.D., Shumway T. (2005) Do behavioral biases affect prices?. Journal of Finance 60(1): 1–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durand R., Lloyd P., Wee Tee H. (2004) Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle reconsidered. Finance Research Letters 1: 171–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fechner G. (1860) Elements of psychophysics. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, NewYork

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielding D., Stracca L. (2006) Myopic loss aversion, disappointment aversion and the equity premium puzzle. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 64(2): 250–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gneezy U., Potters J. (1997) An experiment on risk taking and evaluation periods. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(2): 631–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gneezy U., Kapteyn A., Potters J. (2003) Evaluation periods and asset prices in a market experiment. Journal of Finance 58(2): 821–838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haigh M., List J. (2005) Do professional traders exhibit myopic loss aversion?. An experimental analysis. Journal of Finance 60(1): 523–534

    Google Scholar 

  • Hey J. (2001) Does repetition improve consistency?. Experimental Economics 4: 5–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly M. (1997) Do noise traders influence stock prices?. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 29(3): 351–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Köbberling V., Wakker P. (2005) An index of loss aversion. Journal of Economic Theory 122(1): 119–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langer Th., Weber M. (2005) Myopic prospect theory vs. myopic loss aversion: How general is the phenomenon?. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 56(1): 25–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehra R., Prescott E. (1985) The equity premium: A puzzle. Journal of Monetary Economics 15(2): 341–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odean T. (1998) Volume, volatility, price and profit when all traders are above average. Journal of Finance 53(6): 1887–1934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plott Ch., Zeiler K. (2005) The willingness to pay—willingness to accept gap, the “endowment effect,” subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations. American Economic Review 95(3): 530–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plott Ch., Zeiler K. (2007) Asymmetries in exchange behavior incorrectly interpreted as evidence of prospect theory. American Economic Review 97(4): 1449–1466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler R., 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): 647–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5(4): 297–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ganna Pogrebna.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Blavatskyy, P.R., Pogrebna, G. Reevaluating evidence on myopic loss aversion: aggregate patterns versus individual choices. Theory Decis 68, 159–171 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-009-9143-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-009-9143-5

Keywords

  • Myopic loss aversion
  • Evaluation period
  • Prospect theory
  • Random error

JEL Classification

  • D81
  • C91
  • D14