Mei Wang, Marc Oliver Rieger, and Thorsten Hens, “The Impact of Culture
on Loss Aversion.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 30: 270-281, 2017.
• Wang, Rieger, and Hens look at loss aversion in 53 countries. The underlying notion is that emotions are implicated in loss aversion, but the display and regulation of emotions is culturally influenced.
• In their data, higher (nationwide) levels of loss aversion are connected to: individualism; “power distance” (which means strength of social hierarchy, according to Wikipedia); and masculinity. A fourth factor, uncertainty avoidance, is less meaningful. These factors are drawn from a 2001 book on the consequences of culture by Geert Hofstede. [But it seems the subsequently expanded Hofstede criteria might be even more connected to loss aversion. Again, from Wikipedia: “Independent research in Hong Kong led Hofstede to add a fifth dimension, long-term orientation, to cover aspects of values not discussed in the original paradigm. In 2010, Hofstede added a sixth dimension, indulgence versus self-restraint.”]
• Loss aversion is measured by the answers to two questions. If you have a 50% chance of losing $25, and a 50% chance of winning x, how high does x have to be for you to agree to take this bet? The second question replaces $25 with $100. The loss aversion parameter is determined by dividing the answer by the stakes (25 or 100), and the overall measure averages the two stake-differentiated results.
• The survey is given to college students and the stakes are expressed in ways that, for students, are comparable across countries. Georgians have (easily) the highest loss aversion, at 7.5, with a few countries (Luxembourg, Bosnia, Tanzania) around 1 (no loss aversion). The mean across countries is 2.0. Eastern Europeans have the highest loss aversion, and Africans have the lowest.
• Women tend to be more loss averse, even though an increase in “masculinity” brings higher loss aversion. A greater percentage of Orthodox Christians leads to more loss aversion in a nation.
• Economic factors don’t seem to matter: it is culture, not the economy, that drives international differences in loss aversion.
• Wang, Rieger, and Hens look at loss aversion in 53 countries. The underlying notion is that emotions are implicated in loss aversion, but the display and regulation of emotions is culturally influenced.
• In their data, higher (nationwide) levels of loss aversion are connected to: individualism; “power distance” (which means strength of social hierarchy, according to Wikipedia); and masculinity. A fourth factor, uncertainty avoidance, is less meaningful. These factors are drawn from a 2001 book on the consequences of culture by Geert Hofstede. [But it seems the subsequently expanded Hofstede criteria might be even more connected to loss aversion. Again, from Wikipedia: “Independent research in Hong Kong led Hofstede to add a fifth dimension, long-term orientation, to cover aspects of values not discussed in the original paradigm. In 2010, Hofstede added a sixth dimension, indulgence versus self-restraint.”]
• Loss aversion is measured by the answers to two questions. If you have a 50% chance of losing $25, and a 50% chance of winning x, how high does x have to be for you to agree to take this bet? The second question replaces $25 with $100. The loss aversion parameter is determined by dividing the answer by the stakes (25 or 100), and the overall measure averages the two stake-differentiated results.
• The survey is given to college students and the stakes are expressed in ways that, for students, are comparable across countries. Georgians have (easily) the highest loss aversion, at 7.5, with a few countries (Luxembourg, Bosnia, Tanzania) around 1 (no loss aversion). The mean across countries is 2.0. Eastern Europeans have the highest loss aversion, and Africans have the lowest.
• Women tend to be more loss averse, even though an increase in “masculinity” brings higher loss aversion. A greater percentage of Orthodox Christians leads to more loss aversion in a nation.
• Economic factors don’t seem to matter: it is culture, not the economy, that drives international differences in loss aversion.
No comments:
Post a Comment