Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/HTML-CSS/jax.js

This notebook contains all the analysis described in AndrΓ© and De Langhe (2020):

"No Evidence for Loss Aversion Disappearance and Reversal in Walasek and Stewart (2015)"

PreambleΒΆ

LibrariesΒΆ

Show Code

FunctionsΒΆ

Show Code

Data ProcessingΒΆ

Show Code

Experimental Design and Key ResultΒΆ

We estimate the impact of gains and losses on the likelihood to accept the bet, using W&S' R code.

Show Code

Plotting the results:

Show Code

Ξ» Will Differ Without Decision by SamplingΒΆ

Evidence Through SimulationΒΆ

We generate simulated choices for 10,000 participants, randomly assigned to each of the four conditions.

Show Code

We then estimate the impact of gains and losses on the likelihood to accept the bet, using W&S' R code.

Show Code

The table below reports the estimates Ξ» obtained from the original data and from the simulated data, for each of the three decision rules:

Show Code
lambda
dataset Original Simulated (Discontinuous EV) Simulated (Gain-Loss Ratio) Simulated (Log-Linear)
condition_name
20G-20L 1.000000 1.000000 1.059934 1.00000
20G-40L 0.861915 0.788079 0.500000 0.52167
40G-20L 1.730755 1.237665 2.000000 2.00000
40G-40L 1.017761 1.000000 1.083097 1.00000

In graph form:

Show Code

Evidence in Data from W&SΒΆ

Show Code

In table form:

Show Code
Small G
Small L
Small G
Large L
Large G
Small L
Large G
Large L
Condition
20G-20L 0.95 1.83 0.53 1.03
40G-40L 1.05 1.31 0.45 1.09

Ξ» Is The Same When Analyzing Common LotteriesΒΆ

Show Code

In table form:

Show Code
Data S1a + S1b S1a S1b
Subset All Lotteries Random Subset Common Lotteries All Lotteries Random Subset Common Lotteries All Lotteries Random Subset Common Lotteries
20G - 20L 1.04 1.08 0.96 1.06 1.05 0.99 1.03 1.06 0.93
20G - 40L 0.71 0.70 0.96 0.73 0.69 1.00 0.70 0.66 0.92
40G - 20L 1.84 1.74 1.03 1.94 1.85 1.08 1.77 1.73 1.00
40G - 40L 1.07 1.10 1.01 1.08 1.14 1.03 1.07 1.08 0.99

AppendixΒΆ

Validation of the Pooled ModelΒΆ

Fitting the original individual-level model in R:

Show Code

Fitting the Bayesian model:

Show Code

Fitting the logistic model:

Show Code

Summary information:

Show Code
dataset S1ab S1a S1b
estimation median logit bayes median logit bayes median logit bayes
condition_name
20G-20L 1.00 1.04 1.04 1.01 1.06 1.06 1.01 1.03 1.03
20G-40L 0.86 0.71 0.72 0.88 0.73 0.75 0.81 0.70 0.71
40G-20L 1.73 1.84 1.84 1.77 1.94 1.94 1.59 1.77 1.76
40G-40L 1.02 1.07 1.07 1.02 1.08 1.08 1.01 1.07 1.07

Unsuccessful Re-Analysis of Study 2ΒΆ

According to the paper:

In Experiment 2, we used two distributions for gains and losses, one ranging from $6 to \$20 (in $2 increments) and one three times larger, ranging from \$18 to $60 (in \$6 increments). We only tested the asymmetric cases. Unlike in Experiments 1a and 1b, the possible gains and losses were randomly drawn and paired from the distributions to produce 64 pairs.

From this description, one would expect the data to have the following properties:

  1. In the "Gains 20-Losses 60" (vs. "Gains 60-Losses 20) condition...
     A. All possible gains (losses) should be between 6 and 20, inclusive
     B. All possible gains (losses) should be multiples of 2
     C. All possible losses (gains) should be between 18 and 60, inclusive
     D. All possible losses (gains) should be multiples of 6

Instead, the data suggests the following:

  1. In the "Gains 20-Losses 60" (vs. "Gains 60-Losses 20) condition...
     A. Possible gains (losses) were drawn at random between 0 and 19 (inclusive)
     B. Possible losses(gains) were drawn at random between 0 and 59 (inclusive)

This inconsistency does not allow a re-analysis of the data, as the bet structure does not appear to match the description of the paper.

The graph at the bottom presents the number of bets that appear in the data, for each combination of gains and losses:

Show Code

The authors have confirmed that the amounts of gains and losses reported in the paper were inaccurate.

Re-Analysis of Study 3ΒΆ

Show Code

In table form:

Show Code
20G - 40L 40G - 40L 40G - 20L
Subset
All Lotteries 0.735418 1.244776 1.859524
Random Subset 0.653839 1.154495 2.241193
Common Lotteries 0.887531 1.306122 1.123239

Study 3 also shows limited evidence that decision by sampling is a driver of loss aversion: while their model would have predicted the "40G - 40L" and "40G - 20L" to be different, they seem to be identical when considering the common lotteries.