« Back to Results

Advances and Extensions in Reference-Dependent Models

Paper Session

Saturday, Jan. 4, 2020 2:30 PM - 4:30 PM (PDT)

Marriott Marquis, Mission Hills
Hosted By: Econometric Society
  • Chair: Charles Sprenger, University of California-San Diego

Preferences over Protracted News: Some Preliminary Experimental Evidence

Ori Heffetz
,
Cornell University and Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Matthew Rabin
,
Harvard University

Abstract

We conduct online experiments to investigate implications of “news utility” along the lines of Kőszegi-Rabin (2009), where people get direct utility and disutility from good and bad news about present and future consumption, in addition to the (classical) utility they get from consumption itself. Our pilot experiments have confirmed the feasibility of using public information to conduct real-stakes experiments over protracted periods of time (days, or longer) studying such news utility. The pilot designs begin to explore two predictions: First, if individuals are loss averse over changes in beliefs, they may prefer the resolution of a compound lottery to be chunked together rather than protracted over time. Second, individuals may reject gain-only lotteries, sacrificing money to avoid the flow of news.

Reference Dependence and Attribution Bias: Evidence from Real-Effort Experiments

Benjamin Bushong
,
Michigan State University

Abstract

In this paper, we experimentally investigate whether participants exhibit a previously undocumented form of attribution bias stemming from reference-dependent preferences. In our baseline experiment, participants learned from experience about one of two unfamiliar tasks, one more onerous than the other. Some participants were assigned their task by chance just prior to their initial experience, while others knew in advance which task they would face. In a second session conducted hours later, we elicited those participants' willingness to work again at that same task. Participants assigned the less-onerous task by chance were more willing to work than those who faced it with certainty (or high probability). Conversely, participants assigned the more-onerous task by chance were less willing to work than those who faced it with certainty. These qualitative results, and the fact that differences in willingness to work remained hours after initial impressions were formed, are consistent with the idea that participants mistakenly attributed sensations of positive or negative surprise (relative to expectations) to the effort cost of their assigned task.

Loss Attitudes in the United States Population: Evidence from Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation (DOSE)

Erik Snowberg
,
California Institute of Technology
Jonathan Chapman
,
New York University
Stephanie Wang
,
University of Pittsburgh
Colin Camerer
,
California Institute of Technology

Abstract

We introduce DOSE—Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation—and use it to estimate individual-level loss aversion in a representative sample of the U.S. pop- ulation (N = 2,000). DOSE elicitations are more accurate, more stable across time, and faster to administer than standard methods. We find that around 50% of the U.S. population is loss tolerant. This is counter to earlier findings, which mostly come from lab/student samples, that a strong majority of participants are loss averse. Loss attitudes are correlated with cognitive ability: loss aversion is more prevalent in people with high cognitive ability, and loss tolerance is more common in those with low cog- nitive ability. We also use DOSE to document facts about risk and time preferences, indicating a high potential for DOSE in future research.

Heterogeneity of Gain-Loss Attitudes and Expectations-Based Reference Points

Charles Sprenger
,
University of California-San Diego

Abstract

This project examines the role of heterogeneity in gain-loss attitudes for identi- fying models of expectations-based reference dependence (Kőszegi and Rabin, 2006, 2007) (KR). Different gain-loss attitudes lead to different signs for KR comparative statics. Failure to account for the known heterogeneity in gain-loss attitudes is a cen- tral confounding factor challenging prior tests of the KR model conducted under the assumption of universal loss aversion. We document heterogeneous treatment effects over gain-loss types in both an initial experiment and an exact replication. Rec- ognizing heterogeneity over types allows us to both recover the KR model’s central predictions, and account for inconsistency across prior empirical tests.
JEL Classifications
  • D1 - Household Behavior and Family Economics
  • D9 - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics