IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tin/wpaper/20080112.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Dynamic Model of Investor Decision-Making: How Adaptation to Losses affects Future Selling Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Carmen Lee

    (Marketing Department, VU University Amsterdam)

  • Roman Kraeussl

    (Finance Dept., VU University Amsterdam)

  • André Lucas

    (Finance Dept., VU University Amsterdam)

  • Leonard J. Paas

    (Marketing Dept., VU University Amsterdam)

Abstract

We conduct an experiment to test whether the size of a loss and the time in a losing position affect investors’ adaptation to the loss situation and, subsequently, whether this adaptation affects future investment decisions. As investors adapt to losses, their neutral reference point shifts downwards causing losses to become psychologically less painful. This shift in reference point is a dynamic process that is updated every time new information is received about the stock’s performance. The dynamically changing reference point, together with changing perceptions on the stock’s expected future performance, together influence the decision to hold on to or to capitulate on an investment. We study the relative contribution of each of these components as well as their inter-relationships in a dynamic experimental design. Our results indicated that a larger loss size and a longer time in a losing position are related to higher adaptation levels. These higher adaptation levels relate to less positive emotions and less optimistic expectations about future price changes. The actual decision to capitulate an investment, however, only depends directly on the expectation about the stock’s future performance. The adaptation level, by contrast, affects the actual investment decision indirectly via its impact on expectations.

Suggested Citation

  • Carmen Lee & Roman Kraeussl & André Lucas & Leonard J. Paas, 2008. "A Dynamic Model of Investor Decision-Making: How Adaptation to Losses affects Future Selling Decisions," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 08-112/2, Tinbergen Institute, revised 02 Sep 2013.
  • Handle: RePEc:tin:wpaper:20080112
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://papers.tinbergen.nl/08112.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    2. Arkes, Hal R. & Hirshleifer, David & Jiang, Danling & Lim, Sonya, 2008. "Reference point adaptation: Tests in the domain of security trading," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 67-81, January.
    3. repec:bla:jfinan:v:53:y:1998:i:5:p:1775-1798 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Karl E. Case & Robert J. Shiller, 1988. "The behavior of home buyers in boom and post-boom markets," New England Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, issue Nov, pages 29-46.
    5. Urbany, Joel E & Bearden, William O & Weilbaker, Dan C, 1988. "The Effect of Plausible and Exaggerated Reference Prices on Consumer Perceptions and Price Search," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(1), pages 95-110, June.
    6. Doyle, J. R. & Green, R. H. & Cook, W. D., 1995. "Upper and Lower Bound Evaluation of Multiattribute Objects: Comparison Models Using Linear Programming," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 261-273, December.
    7. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Shefrin, Hersh & Statman, Meir, 1985. "The Disposition to Sell Winners Too Early and Ride Losers Too Long: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 40(3), pages 777-790, July.
    9. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1995. "Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(1), pages 73-92.
    10. Winer, Russell S, 1986. "A Reference Price Model of Brand Choice for Frequently Purchased Products," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 13(2), pages 250-256, September.
    11. David Genesove & Christopher Mayer, 2001. "Loss Aversion and Seller Behavior: Evidence from the Housing Market," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(4), pages 1233-1260.
    12. Richard H. Thaler & Eric J. Johnson, 1990. "Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 643-660, June.
    13. Weber, Martin & Camerer, Colin F., 1998. "The disposition effect in securities trading: an experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 167-184, January.
    14. William F. Sharpe, 1964. "Capital Asset Prices: A Theory Of Market Equilibrium Under Conditions Of Risk," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 19(3), pages 425-442, September.
    15. Haipeng (Allan) Chen & Akshay R. Rao, 2002. "Close Encounters of Two Kinds: False Alarms and Dashed Hopes," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(2), pages 178-196, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fabio L. Mattos & Jamie Zinn, 2016. "Formation and adaptation of reference prices in grain marketing: an experimental study," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(6), pages 621-632, November.

    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. Lee, Carmen & Kräussl, Roman & Lucas, André & Paas, Leo, 2010. "Why do investors sell losers? How adaptation to losses affects future capitulation decisions," CFS Working Paper Series 2010/23, Center for Financial Studies (CFS).
    2. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    3. Alex Markle & George Wu & Rebecca White & Aaron Sackett, 2018. "Goals as reference points in marathon running: A novel test of reference dependence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 19-50, February.
    4. Arkes, Hal R. & Hirshleifer, David & Jiang, Danling & Lim, Sonya, 2008. "Reference point adaptation: Tests in the domain of security trading," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 67-81, January.
    5. Manel Baucells & Martin Weber & Frank Welfens, 2011. "Reference-Point Formation and Updating," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(3), pages 506-519, March.
    6. Grinblatt, Mark & Han, Bing, 2001. "The Disposition Effect and Momentum," University of California at Los Angeles, Anderson Graduate School of Management qt6qg5d62p, Anderson Graduate School of Management, UCLA.
    7. Wang, Huijun & Yan, Jinghua & Yu, Jianfeng, 2017. "Reference-dependent preferences and the risk–return trade-off," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 395-414.
    8. Arkes, Hal R. & Hirshleifer, David & Jiang, Danling & Lim, Sonya S., 2010. "A cross-cultural study of reference point adaptation: Evidence from China, Korea, and the US," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 99-111, July.
    9. Juanjuan Meng & Xi Weng, 2018. "Can Prospect Theory Explain the Disposition Effect? A New Perspective on Reference Points," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(7), pages 3331-3351, July.
    10. Grinblatt, Mark & Han, Bing, 2005. "Prospect theory, mental accounting, and momentum," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 311-339, November.
    11. Henderson, Vicky & Hobson, David & Tse, Alex S.L., 2018. "Probability weighting, stop-loss and the disposition effect," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 360-397.
    12. Kyle, Albert S. & Ou-Yang, Hui & Xiong, Wei, 2006. "Prospect theory and liquidation decisions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 129(1), pages 273-288, July.
    13. Marco Pleßner, 2017. "The disposition effect: a survey," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 67(1), pages 1-30, February.
    14. Hong Chao & Chun-Yu Ho & Xiangdong Qin, 2017. "Risk taking after absolute and relative wealth changes: The role of reference point adaptation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 157-186, April.
    15. Barberis, Nicholas & Xiong, Wei, 2012. "Realization utility," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 251-271.
    16. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    17. Jonathan E. Ingersoll Jr. & Lawrence J. Jin, 2014. "Realization Utility with Reference-Dependent Preferences," Papers 1408.2859, arXiv.org.
    18. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    19. Enrico Giorgi & Thorsten Hens, 2006. "Making prospect theory fit for finance," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 20(3), pages 339-360, September.
    20. Mirjam Lehenkari & Jukka Perttunen, 2010. "Holding on to the Losers: Finnish Evidence," Chapters, in: Brian Bruce (ed.), Handbook of Behavioral Finance, chapter 17, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    adaptation; capitulation; selling decisions; investment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:tin:wpaper:20080112. 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: Tinbergen Office +31 (0)10-4088900 (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tinbenl.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.