TY - JOUR
T1 - Myopic loss aversion
T2 - Demystifying the key factors influencing decision problem framing
AU - Hardin, Andrew M.
AU - Looney, Clayton Arlen
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors sincerely thank the Associate Editor, Julie Irwin, the anonymous review panel, Joseph Valacich, and Jakki Mohr for their constructive feedback and insightful comments during the review process. This research could not have been completed without the financial support of the Lee Business School at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and the Ron and Judy Paige Faculty Fellowship at the University of Montana.
PY - 2012/3
Y1 - 2012/3
N2 - Advancement of myopic loss aversion theory has been hamstrung by conflicting results, methodological inconsistencies, and a piecemeal approach toward understanding the key factors influencing decision problem framing. A series of controlled experiments provides a more holistic view of the variables promoting myopia. Extending the information horizon promotes broad framing, which propels risk. Evaluation frequency and decision frequency interact regardless of information horizon, supporting the notion that restricting either mechanism alleviates myopia. When conducting evaluations infrequently, neither segregating nor aggregating retrospective returns significantly alters risk preferences. Moreover, students and real retirement plan participants exhibit comparable appetites for risk, implying that both groups frame decision problems similarly. Explanations for these findings and avenues for future research are discussed.
AB - Advancement of myopic loss aversion theory has been hamstrung by conflicting results, methodological inconsistencies, and a piecemeal approach toward understanding the key factors influencing decision problem framing. A series of controlled experiments provides a more holistic view of the variables promoting myopia. Extending the information horizon promotes broad framing, which propels risk. Evaluation frequency and decision frequency interact regardless of information horizon, supporting the notion that restricting either mechanism alleviates myopia. When conducting evaluations infrequently, neither segregating nor aggregating retrospective returns significantly alters risk preferences. Moreover, students and real retirement plan participants exhibit comparable appetites for risk, implying that both groups frame decision problems similarly. Explanations for these findings and avenues for future research are discussed.
KW - Decision frequency
KW - Decision problem framing
KW - Equity premium puzzle
KW - Evaluation frequency
KW - Feedback format
KW - Information horizon
KW - Mental accounting
KW - Myopic loss aversion
KW - Retirement planning
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84856293502&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.11.005
DO - 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.11.005
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84856293502
SN - 0749-5978
VL - 117
SP - 311
EP - 331
JO - Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
JF - Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
IS - 2
ER -