Variation in risk seeking behaviour following large losses: A natural experiment

European Economic Review

Volumn 71, Issue , 2014, Pages 121-131

  Page, Lionel ^a   Savage, David A ^a,b   Torgler, Benno ^a,c  

^a QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

^b BOND UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c EBS BUSINESS SCHOOL   (Germany)

Author keywords

Decision under risk; Large losses; Natural experiment

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; FLOOD; NATURAL DISASTER; RISK PERCEPTION; SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT;

AUSTRALIA; BRISBANE; QUEENSLAND;

EID: 84908042763     PISSN: 00142921     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2014.04.009     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Abdellaoui M., Bleichrodt H., l'Haridon O. A tractable method to measure utility and loss aversion under prospect theory. J. Risk Uncertain. 2008, 36(3):245-266.
2. Ackert L.F., Charupat N., Church B.K., Deaves R. An experimental examination of the house money effect in a multi-period setting. Exp. Econ. 2006, 9(1):5-16.
3. Andersen, S., Cox, J., Harrison, G., Lau, M., Rutström, E., Sadiraj, V., 2011. Asset Integration and Attitudes to Risk: Theory and Evidence. Durham University Working Papers.
4. Andersen S., Harrison Glenn W., Lau M.I., Rutström E.E. Risk aversion in game shows. Res. Exp. Econ. 2008, 12:359-404. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1756589&show=abstract.
5. Barberis N., Xiong W. What drives the disposition effect? An analysis of a long-standing preference-based explanation. J. Financ. 2009, 64(2):751-784.
6. Bardsley N., Cubitt R., Loomes G., Moffatt P., Starmer C., Sugden R. Experimental Economics: Rethinking the Rules 2009, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
7. Booth A.L., Nolen P. Gender differences in risk behaviour. does nurture matter?. Econ. J. 2012, 122(558):F56-F78.
8. Cameron, L., Shah, M., 2011. Risk-taking Behavior in the Wake of Natural Disasters. Technical Report, Working paper, University of California-Irvine.
9. Campbell J.Y., Cochrane J.H. By force of habit. a consumption-based explanation of aggregate stock market behavior. J. Polit. Econ. 1999, 107(2):205-251.
10. Cassar, A., Healy, A., vonKessler, C., 2011. Trust, risk, and time preferences after a natural disaster: experimental evidence from Thailand. Unpublished manuscript.
11. Coates J.M., Herbert J. Endogenous steroids and financial risk taking on a London trading floor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2008, 105(16):6167-6172.
12. Department of Environment and Resource Management, 2011. Floodwise Property Report. Brisbane City Council, Brisbane.
13. Diecidue E., van de Ven J. Aspiration level, probability of success and failure, and expected utility. Int. Econ. Rev. 2008, 49(2):683-700.
14. Dohmen T., Falk A., Huffman D., Sunde U., Schupp J., Wagner G.G. Individual risk attitudes. measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 2011, 9(3):522-550.
15. Eckel C., El-Gamal M., Wilson R. Risk loving after the storm. a Bayesian-network study of hurricane Katrina evacuees. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2009, 69(2):110-124.
16. Eeckhoudt L., Gollier C., Schlesinger H. Changes in background risk and risk taking behavior. Econometrica 1996, 64(3):683-689.
17. Etchart-Vincent N., L'Haridon O. Monetary incentives in the loss domain and behavior toward risk. an experimental comparison of three reward schemes including real losses. J. Risk Uncertain. 2011, 42:61-83.
18. Garrett T.A., Sobel R.S. Gamblers favor skewness, not risk. further evidence from united states' lottery games. Econ. Lett. 1999, 63(1):85-90.
19. Gollier C., Pratt J. Risk vulnerability and the tempering effect of background risk. Econ. J. Econ. Soc. 1996, 1109-1123.
20. Guiso L., Paiella M. Risk aversion, wealth, and background risk. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 2008, 6(6):1109-1150.
21. Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., Zingales, L., n.d. Time Varying Risk Aversion. Technical Report.
22. *. Econ. J. 2010, 120(545):595-611.
23. *. Scand. J. Econ. 2007, 109(2):341-368.
24. Harrison G., List J., Towe C. Naturally occurring preferences and exogenous laboratory experiments. a case study of risk aversion. Econometrica 2007, 75(2):433-458.
25. Harrison G., Rutström E. Risk aversion in the laboratory. Research in Experimental Economics 2008, vol. 12:41-196. Emerald, UK.
26. *. Econ. J. 2010, 120(543):80-104.
27. Hey J., Orme C. Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica 1994, 34:1291-1326.
28. Holt C., Laury S. Risk aversion and incentive effects. Am. Econ. Rev. 2002, 92(5):1644-1655.
29. Humphries D. A Dam and a Prayer 2011, Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney.
30. Kahneman D. Maps of bounded rationality. a perspective on intuitive judgment and choice. Nobel Prize Lect. 2002, 8(December):449-489.
31. Kandasamy, N., Hardy, B., Page, L., Schaffner, M., Graggaber, J., S Powlson, A., Fletcher, P., Gurnell, M., Coates, J., 2014. Cortisol shifts financial risk preferences. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
32. Malmendier U., Nagel S. Depression babies. do macroeconomic experiences affect risk taking. Quart. J. Econ. 2011, 126(1):373-416.
33. Noussair C.N., Trautmann S.T., VandeKuilen G. Higher order risk attitudes, demographics, and financial decisions. Rev. Econ. Stud. 2014, 81(1):325-355.
34. Odean T. Are investors reluctant to realize their losses?. J. Financ. 1998, 53(5):1775-1798.
35. Palacios-Huerta I., Santos T. A theory of markets, institutions, and endogenous preferences. J. Publ. Econ. 2004, 88(3):601-627.
36. Post T., van den Assem M.J., Baltussen G., Thaler R.H. Deal or no deal? Decision making under risk in a large-payoff game show. Am. Econ. Rev. 2008, 34:38-71.
37. Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry, 2011. Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry. Interim Report. Queensland Government, Brisbane.
38. Quiggin J. Background risk in generalized expected utility theory. Econ. Theory 2003, 22(3):607-611.
39. Smith, D., Whitelaw, R., 2010. Time-varying risk aversion and the risk-return relation. In: 23rd Australasian Finance and Banking Conference.
40. Starmer C. Developments in non-expected utility theory. the hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. J. Econ. Lit. 2000, 38(2):332-382.
41. Sutter M., Kocher M.G., Glatzle-Rutzler D., Trautmann S. Impatience and uncertainty. experimental decisions predict adolescents' field behavior. Am. Econ. Rev. 2013, 103(1):510-531.
42. Thaler R., Johnson E. Gambling with the house money and trying to break even. the effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Manage. Sci. 1990, 643-660.
43. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty. heuristics and biases. Science 1974, 185(4157):1124-1131.
44. Verdelhan A. A habit-based explanation of the exchange rate risk premium. J. Financ. 2010, 65(1):123-146.
45. Viscusi W.K., Chesson H. Hopes and fears. the conflicting effects of risk ambiguity. Theory Decis. 1999, 47(2):157-184.
46. Wakker P. Prospect Theory: for Risk and Ambiguity 2010, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
47. Worthington A., Brown K., Crawford M., Pickernell D. Gambling participation in Australia. findings from the national household expenditure survey. Rev. Econ. Househ. 2007, 5(2):209-221.
48. Yaari M. The dual theory of choice under risk. Econometrica 1987, 95-115.