Skip to main content

The gain-loss asymmetry and single-self preferences

  • Chapter
Advances in Mathematical Economics

Part of the book series: Advances in Mathematical Economics ((MATHECON,volume 8))

Abstract

Kahneman and Tversky asserted a fundamental asymmetry between gains and losses, namely a “reflection effect” which occurs when an individual prefers a sure gain of $pz to an uncertain gain of $z with probability p, while preferring an uncertain loss of $z with probability p to a certain loss of $pz.

We focus on this class of choices (actuarially fair), and explore the extent to which the reflection effect, understood as occurring at a range of wealth levels, is compatible with single-self preferences.

We decompose the reflection effect into two components, a “probability switch” effect, which is compatible with single-self preferences, and a “translation effect,” which is not. To argue the first point, we analyze two classes of single-self, nonexpected utility preferences, which we label “homothetic” and “weakly homothetic.” In both cases, we characterize the switch effect as well as the dependence of risk attitudes on wealth.

We also discuss two types of utility functions of a form reminiscent of expected utility but with distorted probabilities. Type I always distorts the probability of the worst outcome downwards, yielding attraction to small risks for all probabilities. Type II distorts low probabilities upwards, and high probabilities downwards, implying risk aversion when the probability of the worst outcome is low. By combining homothetic or weak homothetic preferences with Type I or Type II distortion functions, we present four explicit examples: All four display a switch effect and, hence, a form of reflection effect consistent single self-preferences.

We thank the editors and the referees. Audiences at Keio University, at the University of Alacant, at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra, CREA, and at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, on the occasion of the John Roemer Conference, contributed helpful comments, in particular our discussant in the latter Juan D. Moreno-Ternero. The usual caveat applies. We acknowledge the research assistance of Irina Cojuharenco. The first author gratefully acknowledges the financial support from the Spanish Ministerio de Educatioń y Ciencia, under contract no. SEC 2002-03403.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arrow, K.: Essays in the Theory of Risk Bearing. Markham, Chicago 1971

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bateman, I., Munro, A, Rhodes B., Starmer, C., Sugden, R.: A test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112, 479–505 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bernoulli, D: Specimen theoriae novae de mensura sortis. Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanae, Tomus V, 175–192 (1738), translated as “Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk”, Econometrica 22(1), 23—26 (1954)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bosch-Domènech, A., Silvestre J.: Does risk aversion or attraction depend on income? An experiment. Economics Letters 65, 265–273 (1999)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Bosch-Domènech, A., Silvestre J. Reflections on gains and losses: A 2×2×7 Experiment. working paper, Universitat Pompeu Fabra (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bosch-Domènech, A., Silvestre J. Do the wealthy risk more money? An experimental comparison. In: The Birgit Grodal Symposium (K. Vind, C. Schultz eds.). Springer-Verlag (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chipman, J.S.: A survey of the theory of international trade: Part 2, the neoclassical theory. Econometrica 33(4), 685–760 (1965)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Camerer, C., Issacharoff, S., Loewenstein G., O’Donoghue, T., Rabin, M.: Regulation for conservatives: Behavioral economics and the case for ‘asymmetric paternalism’. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 151(3), 1211–1254 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Friedman, M, Savage, L.J.: The utility analysis of choices involving risk. Journal of Political Economy 56(4), 279–304 (1948)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gregory, N.: Relative wealth and risk taking: A short note on the Friedman-Savage utility function. Journal of Political Economy 88(6), 1226–1230 (1980)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Gul, F.: A theory of disappointment aversion. Econometrica 59(3), 667–686 (1991)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Hahneman, W.M.: Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: How much can they differ? American Economic Review 81, 635–647 (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Horowitz, J., McConnell, K.E.: Willingness to accept, willingness to pay, and the income effect. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 51(4), 537–545 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L., Thaler, R.H.: The endowment effect, loss aversion and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5, 193–206 (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2), 263–291 (1979)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Knetsch, J.L.: The endowment effect and evidence of nonreversible indifference curves. American Economic Review 79, 1277–1284 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Larson, D.M.: Further results on willingness to pay for nonmarket goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 23(2), 101–22 (1992)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Machina, M.J.: ‘Expected utility’ analysis without the independence axiom. Econometrica 50(2), 277–324 (1982)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Markowitz, H.M.: The utility of wealth. Journal of Political Economy 60,151–158 (1952)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Munro, A., Sugden, R.: On the theory of reference-dependent preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 50, 407–428 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pratt, J.W: Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica 32, 122–136 (1964)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Quiggin, J.: A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3(4), 323–343 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Quiggin, J.: Generalized Expected Utility and the Rank-Dependent Model Kluwer, Boston 1993

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rabin, M.: Risk aversion and expected-utility theory: A calibration theorem. Econometrica 68(5), 1281–1292 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Robson, A.J.: Status, the distribution of wealth, private and social attitudes to risk. Econometrica 60(4), 837–857 (1992)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Savage, L.: The Foundations of Statistics. Wiley, New York 1954

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Shogren, J.F., Shin, S.Y., Hayes, D.J., Kliebenstein, J.B.: Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept. American Economic Review 84, 255–270 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Sugden, R.: An axiomatic foundation for regret theory. Journal of Economic Theory 60, 159–180 (1993)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Sugden, R.: Reference-dependent subjective expected utility. Journal of Economic Theory 111, 172–191 (2003)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Thaler, R.H., Sunstein, C.: Libertarian paternalism. American Economic Review 93(2) (Papers and Proceedings), 175–179 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Loss-aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics 106, 1039–1061 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Willig, R.D.: Incremental consumer surplus and hedonic price adjustment. Journal of Economic Theory 17(2), 227–253 (1978)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bosch-Domènech, A., Silvestre, J. (2006). The gain-loss asymmetry and single-self preferences. In: Kusuoka, S., Yamazaki, A. (eds) Advances in Mathematical Economics. Advances in Mathematical Economics, vol 8. Springer, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.1007/4-431-30899-7_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics