Quantifying loss aversion: Evidence from a UK population survey

David Blake, Edmund Cannon*, Douglas Wright

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

7 Citations (Scopus)
119 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

We quantify differences in attitudes to loss from individuals with different demographic, personal and socio-economic characteristics. Our data are based on responses from an online survey of a representative sample of over 4,000 UK residents and allow us to produce the most comprehensive analysis of the heterogeneity of loss aversion measures to date. Using the canonical model proposed by Tversky and Kahneman (1992), we show that responses for the population as a whole differ substantially from those typically provided by students (who form the basis of many existing studies of loss aversion). The average aversion to a loss of £500 relative to a gain of the same amount is 2.41, but loss aversion correlates significantly with characteristics such as gender, age, education, financial knowledge, social class, employment status, management responsibility, income, savings and home ownership. Other related factors include marital status, number of children, ease of savings, rainy day fund, personality type, emotional state, newspaper and political party. However, once we condition on all the profiling characteristics of the respondents, some factors, in particular gender, cease to be significant, suggesting that gender differences in risk and loss attitudes might be due to other factors, such as income differences.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)27–57 (2021)
JournalJournal of Risk and Uncertainty
Volume63
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 8 Oct 2021

Research Groups and Themes

  • ECON Applied Economics

Keywords

  • loss aversion
  • expected utility
  • risk attitudes
  • gender effects
  • survey data

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Quantifying loss aversion: Evidence from a UK population survey'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this