Do financial professionals behave according to prospect theory? An experimental study

被引:58
作者
Abdellaoui, Mohammed [1 ]
Bleichrodt, Han [2 ]
Kammoun, Hilda [1 ]
机构
[1] HEC, Paris, France
[2] Erasmus Univ, Rotterdam, Netherlands
关键词
Prospect theory; Loss aversion; Field data; Behavioral finance; Experimental economics; PARAMETER-FREE ELICITATION; MYOPIC LOSS AVERSION; DECISION-MAKING; RISK-AVERSION; PREFERENCE; UTILITY; CHOICE; INCENTIVES;
D O I
10.1007/s11238-011-9282-3
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Prospect theory is increasingly used to explain deviations from the traditional paradigm of rational agents. Empirical support for prospect theory comes mainly from laboratory experiments using student samples. It is obviously important to know whether and to what extent this support generalizes to more naturally occurring circumstances. This article explores this question and measures prospect theory for a sample of private bankers and fund managers. We obtained clear support for prospect theory. Our financial professionals behaved according to prospect theory and violated expected utility maximization. They were risk averse for gains and risk seeking for losses and their utility was concave for gains and (slightly) convex for losses. They were also averse to losses, but less so than commonly observed in laboratory studies and assumed in behavioral finance. A substantial minority focused on gains and largely ignored losses, behavior reminiscent of what caused the current financial crisis.
引用
收藏
页码:411 / 429
页数:19
相关论文
共 35 条
[1]   Parameter-free elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions [J].
Abdellaoui, M .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2000, 46 (11) :1497-1512
[2]   Loss aversion under prospect theory: A parameter-free measurement [J].
Abdellaoui, Mohammed ;
Bleichrodt, Han ;
Paraschiv, Corina .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2007, 53 (10) :1659-1674
[3]   Reconciling introspective utility with revealed preference: Experimental arguments based on prospect theory [J].
Abdellaoui, Mohammed ;
Barrios, Carolina ;
Wakker, Peter P. .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMETRICS, 2007, 138 (01) :356-378
[4]   Mental accounting, loss aversion, and individual stock returns [J].
Barberis, N ;
Huang, M .
JOURNAL OF FINANCE, 2001, 56 (04) :1247-1292
[5]   Prospect theory and asset prices [J].
Barberis, N ;
Huang, M ;
Santos, T .
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 2001, 116 (01) :1-53
[6]   What Drives the Disposition Effect? An Analysis of a Long-Standing Preference-Based Explanation [J].
Barberis, Nicholas ;
Xiong, Wei .
JOURNAL OF FINANCE, 2009, 64 (02) :751-784
[7]  
Bardsley N., 2010, Experimental Economics: Rethinking the Rules
[8]   The impact of incentives upon risky choice experiments [J].
Beattie, J ;
Loomes, G .
JOURNAL OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY, 1997, 14 (02) :155-168
[9]   MYOPIC LOSS AVERSION AND THE EQUITY PREMIUM PUZZLE [J].
BENARTZI, S ;
THALER, RH .
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 1995, 110 (01) :73-92
[10]   ATTITUDES TOWARD RISK - EXPERIMENTAL-MEASUREMENT IN RURAL INDIA [J].
BINSWANGER, HP .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 1980, 62 (03) :395-407