- Nathan Novemsky and Daniel Kahneman (2005) “The Boundaries of Loss Aversion." Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 42, No. 2 (May, 2005), pp. 119-128. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30164009 .
Summary by Yi-Nung
the endowment effect
用 coffee mug 做實驗:
seller 給一個 mug; buyer 沒有 mug.
分別問 seller 和 buyer 的願接受和願付價格, 結果
seller = $7.12
buyer <= $2.18
解釋: Sellers evaluate the mug as a loss, whereas buyers evaluate the mug as a gain
另一個實驗讓 chooser 可選 mug 或 錢:
會選擇錢來替代 mug 的平均價格 = $3.12
An interesting puzzle:
Both buyers and choosers consider the mug a gain, but buyers expect to give up money, whereas choosers expect to receive money
Tversky and Kahneman (1991) posit that there is no loss aversion in routine transac- tions. Nathan Novemsky and Daniel Kahneman (2005, JMR) develops this argument.
其它 loss aversion 的應用:
research has found that price increases and decreases can have asymmetric effects that are consistent with loss aversion (Putler 1992; Winer 1986).
Durable goods 更版
Loss aversion can also explain a reluctance to upgrade durable items (Okada 2001).
It can reduce the number of transactions in the marketplace (Knetsch 1989) and may cause consumers and managers to take fewer risks (Rabin 2000). For example, loss aversion has been implicated in the premium for stock returns over bond returns (Benartzi and Thaler 1995).
有時並沒有發現 loss aversion 現象
Remarkably, people do not expect loss aversion in themselves or in others (Van Boven, Dunning, and Loewenstein 2000), making any consequences of loss aversion in the marketplace likely to be attributed to some other cause.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF LOSS AVERSION
Loss aversion in riskless decision
Thaler (1980) was the first to extend the concept of loss aversion to riskless decisions, suggesting that receiving a good had a much smaller valuation than did losing the same item.item. He offered loss aversion as an explanation of the endowment effect, which he defined as a discrepancy between buying and selling prices.
NBLI: no loss aversion in buying
Table 2: 標的物是: a mug
The results support several conclusions:
1. 購買 (放棄 money) 並無 loss aversion
First, there is no loss aversion for money that is given up in a purchase. This was supported by the similarity of choosing and buying prices. If there were loss aversion for the money that buyers give up, we would expect buying prices to be approximately half of the CE set by choosers.
2. 在平衡的風險下, 無 loss aversion
Second, there is no risk aversion beyond loss aversion in balanced risk… If there were risk aversion beyond loss aversion, risky sell- ers should have set a higher price than sellers…. This finding further supports the idea that there is no loss aversion for money that is given up in routine purchases, because it suggests that the difference between buyers and risky buyers can be attributed to loss aversion in the latter but not in the former.
THREE PROPOSITIONS ABOUT THE PSYCHOLOGY OF LOSS AVERSION AND ITS BOUNDARIES
P1 : The value attached to a consumption good that is given up in an exchange reflects loss aversion.
… The shopper is unlikely to experience loss aversion when giving up a good for a nearly identical one.
P1 不適用於「放棄的 good 和取得的 good 之 benefits 相同」
We suggest that our first proposition fails when all the benefits of the good that is given up are present in the acquired good. In other words, we believe that loss aversion operates on benefits rather than on attributes of goods.
例如, there is no loss aversion for an old car that is traded in as part of the purchase of a new car…. This prediction is consistent with research that finds that close substitutes show less loss aversion in exchange (相近替代財無 loss aversion)….
…, focusing on the low-level, concrete benefits that are different between two goods (e.g., playing tapes versus playing CDs) should produce more loss aversion than focusing on higher-level benefits that are more similar across the goods (e.g., hearing favorite music on demand).
P2: Goods that are exchanged as intended are not evaluated as losses.
For example, consumers intend to wear the shoes they own, but a shoe merchant holds shoes with the intention of exchanging them for money. (自己的鞋子會有 loss aversion; 但賣鞋者不會有 loss aversion)
P3: There is no risk aversion beyond loss aversion in balanced risks.
MARKETING IMPLICATIONS OF LOSS AVERSION AND ITS BOUNDARIES
Citing this paper
Items Citing this Item (back to top)
14 item(s) in JSTOR cite this item
Karen M. Stilley, J. Jeffrey Inman, and Kirk L. Wakefield
Vol. 37, No. 2 (August 2010) pp. 264-278Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/651567
Joann Peck and Suzanne B. Shu
Vol. 36, No. 3 (October 2009) pp. 434-447Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/598614
Vol. 75, No. 5, Proceedings of the 2006 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association<break></break>Part II: Symposia Papers<break></break>Edited by Cristina Bicchieri and Jason Alexander (December 2008) pp. 633-645Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/594510
Daniel G. Goldstein, Eric J. Johnson, and William F. Sharpe
Vol. 35, No. 3 (October 2008) pp. 440-456Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/589562
Corina Paraschiv, Olivier L’Haridon
Vol. 23, No. 2 (juin 2008) pp. 67-83Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40589564
Jayson L. Lusk, Deacue Fields, Walt Prevatt
Vol. 90, No. 2 (May, 2008) pp. 487-498Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30139599
Fieke Harinck, Eric Van Dijk, Ilja Van Beest, Paul Mersmann
Vol. 18, No. 12 (Dec., 2007) pp. 1099-1105Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40064709
Lyle Brenner, Yuval Rottenstreich, Sanjay Sood, and Baler Bilgin
Vol. 34, No. 3 (October 2007) pp. 369-376Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/518545
Botond Kőszegi, Matthew Rabin
Vol. 97, No. 4 (Sep., 2007) pp. 1047-1073Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30034084
Pankaj Aggarwal and Meng Zhang
Vol. 33, No. 3 (December 2006) pp. 413-419Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/508524
Deborah A. Kermer, Erin Driver-Linn, Timothy D. Wilson, Daniel T. Gilbert
Vol. 17, No. 8 (Aug., 2006) pp. 649-653Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40064429
Vol. 42, No. 2 (May, 2005) pp. 129-133Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30164010
Nathan Novemsky, Daniel Kahneman
Vol. 42, No. 2 (May, 2005) pp. 139-140Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30164012
Dan Ariely, Joel Huber, Klaus Wertenbroch
Vol. 42, No. 2 (May, 2005) pp. 134-138Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30164011