IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v96y2006i4p1069-1090.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Individual Preferences, Monetary Gambles, and Stock Market Participation: A Case for Narrow Framing

Author

Listed:
  • Nicholas Barberis
  • Ming Huang
  • Richard H. Thaler

Abstract

We argue that ?narrow framing,? whereby an agent who is offered a new gamble evaluates that gamble in isolation, may be a more important feature of decisionmaking than previously realized. Our starting point is the evidence that people are often averse to a small, independent gamble, even when the gamble is actuarially favorable. We find that a surprisingly wide range of utility functions, including many nonexpected utility specifications, have trouble explaining this evidence, but that this difficulty can be overcome by allowing for narrow framing. Our analysis makes predictions as to what kinds of preferences can most easily address the stock market participation puzzle. (JEL D81, G11)

Suggested Citation

  • Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang & Richard H. Thaler, 2006. "Individual Preferences, Monetary Gambles, and Stock Market Participation: A Case for Narrow Framing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1069-1090, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:aea:aecrev:v:96:y:2006:i:4:p:1069-1090
    Note: DOI: 10.1257/aer.96.4.1069
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.96.4.1069
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/data/sept06/20031011_data.zip
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to AEA members and institutional subscribers.
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Larry G. Epstein & Martin Schneider, 2007. "Learning Under Ambiguity," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 74(4), pages 1275-1303.
    2. Epstein, Larry G. & Zin, Stanley E., 2001. "The independence axiom and asset returns," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 8(5), pages 537-572, December.
    3. Ang, Andrew & Bekaert, Geert & Liu, Jun, 2005. "Why stocks may disappoint," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 471-508, June.
    4. Gul, Faruk, 1991. "A Theory of Disappointment Aversion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 667-686, May.
    5. Larry G. Epstein & Stanley E. Zin, 2013. "Substitution, risk aversion and the temporal behavior of consumption and asset returns: A theoretical framework," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 12, pages 207-239, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Haliassos, Michael & Bertaut, Carol C, 1995. "Why Do So Few Hold Stocks?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(432), pages 1110-1129, September.
    7. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang & Tano Santos, 2001. "Prospect Theory and Asset Prices," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(1), pages 1-53.
    8. Alma Cohen & Liran Einav, 2007. "Estimating Risk Preferences from Deductible Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(3), pages 745-788, June.
    9. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang, 2006. "The Loss Aversion / Narrow Framing Approach to the Equity Premium Puzzle," NBER Working Papers 12378, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Raj Chetty, 2004. "Consumption Commitments, Unemployment Durations, and Local Risk Aversion," NBER Working Papers 10211, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang & Richard Thaler, 2003. "Individual Preferences, Monetary Gambles and the Equity Premium," NBER Working Papers 9997, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang, 2006. "The Loss Aversion / Narrow Framing Approach to the Equity Premium Puzzle," NBER Working Papers 12378, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Ang, Andrew & Bekaert, Geert & Liu, Jun, 2005. "Why stocks may disappoint," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 471-508, June.
    3. Larry G. Epstein & Emmanuel Farhi & Tomasz Strzalecki, 2014. "How Much Would You Pay to Resolve Long-Run Risk?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(9), pages 2680-2697, September.
    4. Bryan R. Routledge & Stanley E. Zin, 2010. "Generalized Disappointment Aversion and Asset Prices," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 65(4), pages 1303-1332, August.
    5. Luigi Guiso, 2015. "A Test of Narrow Framing and its Origin," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 1(1), pages 61-100, March.
    6. Dillenberger, David & Rozen, Kareen, 2015. "History-dependent risk attitude," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 445-477.
    7. Evren, Özgür, 2019. "Recursive non-expected utility: Connecting ambiguity attitudes to risk preferences and the level of ambiguity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 285-307.
    8. David Hirshleifer, 2001. "Investor Psychology and Asset Pricing," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(4), pages 1533-1597, August.
    9. David K. Backus & Bryan R. Routledge & Stanley E. Zin, 2005. "Exotic Preferences for Macroeconomists," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2004, Volume 19, pages 319-414, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Guiso, Luigi & Sodini, Paolo, 2013. "Household Finance: An Emerging Field," Handbook of the Economics of Finance, in: G.M. Constantinides & M. Harris & R. M. Stulz (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Finance, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1397-1532, Elsevier.
    11. Kontosakos, Vasileios E. & Hwang, Soosung & Kallinterakis, Vasileios & Pantelous, Athanasios A., 2024. "Long-term dynamic asset allocation under asymmetric risk preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 312(2), pages 765-782.
    12. Duraj, Kamila & Grunow, Daniela & Chaliasos, Michael & Laudenbach, Christine & Siegel, Stephan, 2024. "Rethinking the stock market participation puzzle: A qualitative approach," IMFS Working Paper Series 210, Goethe University Frankfurt, Institute for Monetary and Financial Stability (IMFS).
    13. Christian Gollier & Alexander Muermann, 2010. "Optimal Choice and Beliefs with Ex Ante Savoring and Ex Post Disappointment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(8), pages 1272-1284, August.
    14. Duraj, Kamila & Grunow, Daniela & Chaliasos, Michael & Laudenbach, Christine & Siegel, Stephan, 2024. "Rethinking the stock market participation puzzle: A qualitative approach," SAFE Working Paper Series 441, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    15. van Dolder, Dennie & Vandenbroucke, Jurgen, 2024. "Behavioral risk profiling: Measuring loss aversion of individual investors," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    16. Dillenberger, David, 2008. "Preferences for One-Shot Resolution of Uncertainty and Allais-Type Behavior," MPRA Paper 8342, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. David Dillenberger, 2008. "Preferences for One-Shot Resolution of Uncertainty and Allais-Type Behavior," PIER Working Paper Archive 08-036, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    18. David Dillenberger & Kareen Rozen, 2011. "History-Dependent Risk Attitude, Second Version," PIER Working Paper Archive 12-029, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 14 Jul 2012.
    19. Barberis, Nicholas & Huang, Ming, 2009. "Preferences with frames: A new utility specification that allows for the framing of risks," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1555-1576, August.
    20. Claudio Campanale & Rui Castro & Gian Luca Clementi, 2010. "Asset Pricing in a Production Economy with Chew-Dekel Preferences," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 13(2), pages 379-402, April.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aea:aecrev:v:96:y:2006:i:4:p:1069-1090. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Michael P. Albert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.