Talk:Loss aversion/Archives/2016
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Loss aversion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Dr. Matthews's comment on this article
Dr. Matthews has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
Spelling and grammar mistakes.
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Matthews has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
- Reference 1: Carpenter, Jeffrey P. & Matthews, Peter Hans & Schirm, John, 2007. "Tournaments and Office Politics: Evidence from a Real Effort Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 2972, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Reference 2: Mellizo, Philip & Carpenter, Jeffrey P. & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2011. "Workplace Democracy in the Lab," IZA Discussion Papers 5460, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Wengstrom's comment on this article
Dr. Wengstrom has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
The article gives a brief introduction of the concept of loss aversion. It is informative, but the description is scattered and unfocused. The main part of the text focus on the endowment effect. Yet, the article does not mention several relevant issues relating the endowment effect and loss aversion such as subject misconceptions (Plott and Zeiler, 2005) and experience (List, 2004). The implications of loss aversion also goes far beyond the endowment effect. It could be worth mentioning that economically important contexts and phenomena such as wage rigidity and portfolio choice are also linked to loss aversion.
One central component of loss aversion (and prospect theory in general) is reference dependence. This should have been pointed out more clearly. One of the weaknesses of models building on loss aversion is that it is not clear what constitutes the reference point and in response to this, several recent models have specified expected outcomes as a natural reference point (see for example Köszegi and Rabin, 2006).
Plott Charles R. and Kathryn Zeiler, “The Willingness to Pay-Willingness to Accept Gap, the "Endowment Effect," Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations,” The American Economic Review, 2005, 95(3): 530-545. List, John A. “Neoclassical Theory Versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace,” Econometrica (2004), 72(2): 615-625.Köszegi, Botond and Matthew Rabin, “A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2006, 121 (4), 1133–1165
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Wengstrom has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
- Reference : Ola Andersson & Hakan J. Holm & Jean-Robert Tyran & Erik Wengstrom, 2013. "Deciding for Others Reduces Loss Aversion," Discussion Papers 13-09, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.