作者：理查德．蔡斯（Richard B. Chase）, 蘇利蘭．達蘇（Sriram Dasu）讓服務更完美的祕訣 運用行為科學研究顧客體驗
人是如何注意到時間的推移，以及如何估計時間持續的長短？…(1) 專心做一件事情，不會注意到經過多久。… (2) 專心注意時間長短的話，就會高估時間。(3) …將時間分割得愈細，就會覺得時間愈長久。.
人們總是希望事情要有意義，如果意外事件沒有適當的解釋，就會憑空杜撰一個。行為科學家稱之為「反事實的想法」（counterfactual thinking），不過叫做「第二種猜想」（second-guessing）比較容易理解。(YNY: 應該和「找藉口」的習慣類似)。…人們需要的是解釋，必要時會自己憑空杜撰
Charles Bellemare, Michaela Krausee, Sabine Krfgerf,Chendi Zhang (2005) “Myopic loss aversion: Information feedback vs. investment flexibility“. Economics Letters, vol., 87, pp.319 – 324. *****
==notes by yinung==
在於資訊迴饋頻率 frequent/infrequent, 其 treatment 有三種:
H: 投資期間1期, 資訊迴饋頻率每1期
M: 投資期間3期, 資訊迴饋頻率每1期
L: 投資期間3期, 資訊迴饋頻率每3期
Bellemare et al. (2005) 實驗結果是: 投資額度 L~M>H
- We confirm the works by Gneezy and Potters (1997) and others building on it, and furthermore find that experimentally induced myopia in combination with loss aversion remained to affect investment behavior systematically even when flexibility in adjusting investment was no longer varied. MLA is driven by information feedback.
We experimentally disentangle the effect of information feedback from the effect of investment flexibility on the investment behavior of a myopically loss averse investor. Our findings show that varying the information condition alone suffices to induce behavior that is in line with the hypothesis of Myopic Loss Aversion.
==notes by yinung==
這篇有讓 subject 內生決定 H1 或 H3
H1/3: investment 1/3 period
F1: Feedback, 1 period
No-profit: 沒有給 profit 資訊
Profit:有給「告訴 subject, 選 3期, 其平均 profit 較高 」資訊
內生決定 feedback: F1/3, 但每期都可投資
第1期被指定 H1/3; 第3期開始可以自訂(每3期一次), 轉換成本 40ECU (約報酬的 2.6%)
We use an experiment to examine the causes, consequences and possible cures of myopic loss aversion (MLA) for investment behaviour under risk. We find that both investment horizons and feedback frequency contribute almost equally to the effects of MLA. Longer investment horizons and less frequent feedback lead to higher investments. However, when given the choice, subjects prefer on average shorter investment horizons and more frequent feedback. Exploiting the status quo bias by setting a long investment horizon or low feedback frequency as a default turns out to be a successful behavioural intervention to increase investment levels.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 263-291.
uoregon.edu 提供的 [PDF]; [PDF] albacharia.ma] ;
==notes by yinung==
近數十年來, 影響最大的文章之一, 修正了期望效用理論的一些不合理的部份。
本文大量使用機率組合之選擇，以實驗 (問受試者) 的選擇，來解釋 EU 的不合理。
This paper presents a critique of expected utility theory as a descriptive model of decision making under risk, and develops an alternative model, called prospect theory. Choices among risky prospects exhibit several pervasive effects that are inconsistent with the basic tenets of utility theory. In particular, people underweight outcomes that are merely probable in comparison with outcomes that are obtained with certainty. This tendency, called the certainty effect, contributes to risk aversion in choices involving sure gains and to risk seeking in choices involving sure losses. In addition, people generally discard components that are shared by all prospects under consideration. This tendency, called the isolation effect, leads to inconsistent preferences when the same choice is presented in different forms. An alternative theory of choice is developed, in which value is assigned to gains and losses rather than to final assets and in which probabilities are replaced by decision weights. The value function is normally concave for gains, commonly convex for losses, and is generally steeper for losses than for gains. Decision weights are generally lower than the corresponding probabilities, except in the range of low probabilities. Overweighting of low probabilities may contribute to the attractiveness of both insurance and gambling.
MICHAEL S. HAIGH and JOHN A. LIST (2005) “Do Professional Traders Exhibit Myopic Loss Aversion? An Experimental Analysis." Journal of Finance, Volume 60, Issue 1, pages 523–534, February 2005. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00737.x; iastate.edu 提供的 [PDF];
Two behavioral concepts, loss aversion and mental accounting, have been combined to provide a theoretical explanation of the equity premium puzzle. Recent experimental evidence supports the theory, as students’ behavior has been found to be consistent with myopic loss aversion (MLA). Yet, much like certain anomalies in the realm of riskless decision-making, these behavioral tendencies may be attenuated among professionals. Using traders recruited from the CBOT, we do indeed find behavioral differences between professionals and students, but rather than discovering that the anomaly is muted, we find that traders exhibit behavior consistent with MLA to a greater extent than students.
Kristoffer W. Eriksen, and Ola Kvaløy (2010) “Do financial advisors exhibit myopic loss aversion?." Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, June 2010, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 159-170.
Myopic loss aversion (MLA) has been proposed as an explanation for the equity premium puzzle, and a number of experiments on students indicate that people do exhibit MLA. However, many people do not rely on their own judgment when making investment decisions, but obtain help from financial investment advisors on how to allocate their wealth. The preferences and choices of financial advisors are thus important for understanding investment behavior. In this paper we make use of 50 professional financial advisors to examine whether they exhibit behavior consistent with MLA. Indeed, we find that they behave consistently with MLA to a larger extent than students.
- Gneezy, U., Potters, J.: An experiment on risk taking and evaluation rounds. Q. J. Econ. 102, 631–645 (1997)
- Gneezy, U., Kapteyn, A., Potters, J.: Evaluation rounds and asset prices in a market experiment. J. Finance 58, 821–837 (2003) CrossRefHaigh, M.S., List, J.A.: Do professional traders exhibit myopic loss aversion? An experimental analysis. J. Finance 60, 523–534 (2005) CrossRef
- Harrison, G.W., Rutström, E.E.: Risk aversion in the laboratory. Res. Exp. Econ. 12, 41–196 (2008) CrossRef
- Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47, 263–291 (1979) CrossRef
- Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Choices, values and frames. Am. Psychol. 39, 341–350 (1984) CrossRef
- Langer, T., Weber, M.: Does binding of feedback influence myopic loss aversion? An experimental analysis. CEPR Discussion Paper 4084, London (2003)
- List, J.A.: Does market experience eliminate market anomalies? Q. J. Econ. 118, 41–71 (2003) CrossRef
- Mehra, R., Prescott, E.: The equity premium: A puzzle. J. Monet. Econ. 15, 145–161 (1985) CrossRef
- Rabin, M.: Risk aversion and expected-utility theory: A calibration theorem. Econometrica 68, 1281–1292 (2000) CrossRef
- Siebenmorgen, N., Weber, M.: A behavioral model for asset allocation. Financ. Mark. Portf. Manag. 17, 15–42 (2003) CrossRef
- Siegel, J.J., Thaler, R.: Anomalies: The equity premium puzzle. J. Econ. Perspect. 11, 191–200 (1997)
- Sutter, M.: Are teams prone to myopic loss aversion? An experimental study on individual versus team investment behavior. Econ. Lett. 97, 128–132 (2007) CrossRef
- Thaler, R.: Mental accounting and consumer choice. Mark. Sci. 4, 199–214 (1985) CrossRef
- Thaler, R., Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., Schwartz, A.: The effect of myopia and loss aversion on risk taking: An experimental test. Q. J. Econ. 102, 647–661 (1997)
- Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertain. 5, 297–323 (1992) CrossRef
Matthias Sutter (2007) “Are teams prone to myopic loss aversion? An experimental study on individual versus team investment behavior."Economics Letters, Volume 97, Issue 2, November 2007, Pages 128–132. DOI; ***
==notes by yinung==
此文之實驗研究細節，可參考 Team decision making under risk and myopic loss aversion 一文， or see 2005-Sutter-team decision-working paper
Myopic loss aversion (MLA) has been found to have a persistent influence on individual decision making under risk. In this paper I show that team decision making attenuates MLA, but that teams are also prone to MLA
Shlomo Benartzi and Richard H. Thaler (1995) “Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 110, No. 1 (Feb., 1995), pp. 73-92. ; doi: 10.2307/2118511 ;nyu.edu 提供的 [PDF]
==notes by yinung==
Prospect theory, myopic loss aversion (MLA) 和 equity premium puzzle 的重要文獻
The equity premium puzzle refers to the empirical fact that stocks have outperformed bonds over the last century by a surprisingly large margin. We offer a new explanation based on two behavioral concepts. First, investors are assumed to be “loss averse,” meaning that they are distinctly more sensitive to losses than to gains. Second, even long-term investors are assumed to evaluate their portfolios frequently. We dub this combination “myopic loss aversion.” Using simulations, we find that the size of the equity premium is consistent with the previously estimated parameters of prospect theory if investors evaluate their portfolios annually.