Loss aversion in the riskless choice of two goods

Last registered on May 26, 2022

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Loss aversion in the riskless choice of two goods
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0009494
Initial registration date
May 25, 2022

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
May 26, 2022, 11:45 AM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Last updated
May 26, 2022, 4:05 PM EDT

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

There are documents in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access to this information.

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Ritsumeikan University

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
Kansai University
PI Affiliation
Yokohama National University

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2022-06-07
End date
2022-09-23
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Making the experimental comparison of risky and riskless two-goods choice, Chung, Glimcher, and Tymula (2019, American Economic Journal: Microeconomics) find that loss averse behaiviors are not observed under riskless choice, which is not consistent to the prediction of the prospect theory in Tversky and Kahneman (1991, Quarterly Journal of Economics). Specifically, the loss range of their task questions, which measures the degrees of loss aversion, is that the quantities of two goods both decrease, compared with the initially given endowment (See Table 1 in Chung et al. 2019). Alternatively, turning to the original paper of loss-averse preferences by Tversky and Kahneman (1991), the loss range is that the quantity of a good decreases but that of the other good increases. Furthermore, they show that the differences of the initial quantities of two goods affect the curvature of the indifference curve in the loss range (See Figure III in Tversky and Kahneman); however, Chung et al (2019) give the fixed quantities as the initial endowment.

Following the experimental design in Chung et al (2019), this study re-examines the loss averse propensity of riskless choice by differing the initial quantities of two goods as in Figure III in Tversky and Kahneman (1991) where the relationship between two goods is not substitute as in Chung et al. (2019). Moreover, this study newly observes the indifference curve of the loss range in the case of two goods that are substitute (orange juices of two companies).
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Mori, Tomoharu, Yasuhiro Nakamto Nakamoto and Naoko Okuyama. 2022. "Loss aversion in the riskless choice of two goods." AEA RCT Registry. May 26. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.9494
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
In the experiment, participants are given an endowment of two goods and then face options regarding the combination of changes in the two goods. The number of goods in the endowment differs within participant. The type of goods used in the experiment and the order of endowment differ between participants.
Intervention Start Date
2022-06-07
Intervention End Date
2022-09-23

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Participants’ choices of the two goods in the experiment
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
In the experiment, participants are given an endowment of two goods and then face options regarding the combination of changes in the two goods. The number of goods in the endowment differs within participant. The type of goods used in the experiment and the order of endowment differ between participants.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization done in office by a computer
Randomization Unit
Experimental Sessions
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
12 experimental sessions
Sample size: planned number of observations
32 participants for 6 experimental treatments (192 participants in total)
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
32 participants for each of the following treatments
1) Beverage-Snack, Order1
2) Beverage-Snack, Order2
3) Beverage-Beverage, Order1
4) Beverage-Beverage, Order2
5) Beverage-Snack, Order3
6) Beverage-Beverage, Order3
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Research Institute for Socionetwork Strategies, Kansai University
IRB Approval Date
2022-04-14
IRB Approval Number
2022001