111:
gaining $ 500. In the second situation, they had $ 2,000 and had to select either Choice A (a 50% chance of losing $ 1,000, and 50% of losing $ 0) or Choice B (a 100% chance of losing $ 500). An overwhelming majority of participants chose “B” in the first scenario and "A" in the second. This suggested that people are willing to settle for an acceptable amount of earnings (despite they have a reasonable opportunity of gaining more). However, people are willing to participate in risk-seeking activities where they can reduce their losses. In a sense, people value losses more than the same amount of gains. This phenomenon is called the “asymmetric value function," which means, in short, the pain of loss outweighs the equivalent level of gain.
107:
equivalent amount of gains. and that people consequently base their decisions not on perceived losses but on perceived gains. What this means is that, if presented with two equal choices, one described in terms of possible gains and the other described in terms of possible losses, they would opt for the former choice, even though both would yield the same economic end result. For example, even though the net result of receiving $ 50 would be the same as the net result of gaining $ 100 and then losing $ 50, people would tend to take a more favorable view of the former than of the latter scenario.
98:
stocks that have risen in value but holding onto stocks that have decreased value. The researchers coined the term "disposition effect" to describe this tendency of holding on to losing stocks too long and to sell off well-performing stocks too readily. Shefrin colloquially described this as a "predisposition toward get-evenitis." John R. Nofsinger has called this sort of investment behavior as a product of the desire to avoid regret and seek pride.
131:
of a major gain and a minor loss as a net minor gain, and, in the case of a combined major loss and minor gain, to think of the two separately. In a similar manner, investors show a reversed disposition effect when they are framed to think of their investment as progress towards a specific investment goal rather than a generic investment.
130:
The disposition effect can be minimized by means of a mental approach called "hedonic framing". For example, individuals can try to force themselves to think of a single large gain as a number of smaller gains, to think of a number of smaller losses as a single large loss, to think of the combination
97:
The effect was identified and named by Hersh
Shefrin and Meir Statman in 1985. In their study, Shefrin and Statman noted that individuals do not like causing losses any more than they like making benefits, and individuals are able to gamble on losses. Consequently, investors will be energetic to sell
37:
and Meir
Statman identified and named the effect in their 1985 paper, which found that people dislike losing significantly more than they enjoy winning. The disposition effect has been described as one of the foremost vigorous actualities around individual investors because investors will hold stocks
122:. It also plainly underlies the disposition effect. In both situations presented to participants in Kahneman and Tversky's study, the participants sought, in risk-averse fashion, to cash in on guaranteed gains. This behavior plainly explains why investors act too soon to realize stockmarket gains.
110:
In
Kahneman and Tversky's study, participants were presented with two situations. In the first, they had $ 1,000 and had to select one of two choices. Under Choice A, they would have a 50% chance of gaining $ 1,000, and a 50% chance of gaining $ 0; under Choice B, they would have a 100% chance of
80:
momentum, meaning stocks that have performed well in the past six months appear to perform well in the next six months, and stocks that have done badly in the past six months tend to do poorly in the next six months. This being the case, the rational act would be to hold on to stocks which have
106:
Researchers have traced the cause of the disposition effect to so-called "prospect theory", which was first identified and named by Daniel
Kahneman and Amos Tversky in 1979. Kahneman and Tversky stated that losses generate more emotional feelings which affect individual than the effects of an
72:
have depicted the disposition impact as the trade of individual investors are one of the most important realities. The influence, they note, has been recorded in all the broad individual investor trading activity databases available and has been linked to significant pricing phenomena such as
84:
Alexander Joshi has summed up the disposition effect as the disposition that investors have to hold on to losing positions longer than winning positions, saying that investors would illustrate risk-seeking conduct by retaining the losers because they dislike losses and fear preventing them.
53:". The prospect theory proposes that when an individual is presented with two equal choices, one having possible gains and the other with possible losses, the individual is more likely to opt for the former choice even though both would yield the same economic result.
88:
Dacey and
Zielonka showed that the greater the level of stock prices volatility, the more prone the investor was to sell a loser, contrary to the disposition effect. This result explains the panic selling of stocks during a market collapse.
507:
73:
post-earnings announcement drift and momentum at the stock level. In other conditions, for example in the real estate market, disposition effects were also discovered.
446:
491:
389:
57:
81:
recently increased in value; and to sell stocks which have recently decreased in value. However, individual investors tend to do just the contrary.
355:
227:
Shefrin, Hersh; Statman, Meir (July 1985). "The
Disposition to Sell Winners Too Early and Ride Losers Too Long: Theory and Evidence".
114:
The prospect theory can explain such phenomena as people who prefer not to deposit their money in a bank, even though they would earn
529:
Seidens, Sebastian; Wierzbitzki, Marc (31 October 2018). "The Causal
Influence of Investment Goals on the Disposition Effect".
468:
570:
501:
85:
Alternatively, investors will want to lock in money, so that they display risk-averse conduct by selling winners.
411:
Dacey, Raymond; Zielonka, Piotr (2013). "High volatility eliminates the disposition effect in a market crisis".
381:
76:
Barberis has noted that the disposition effect is not a rational sort of conduct because of the reality of
180:
565:
575:
27:. It relates to the tendency of investors to sell assets that have increased in value, while keeping
342:
275:
150:
323:"What Drives the Disposition Effect? An Analysis of a Long-Standing Preference-Based Explanation"
337:
270:
261:
Kahneman, Daniel; Tversky, Amos (1979). "Prospect Theory: An
Analysis of Decision under Risk".
534:
440:
322:
140:
8:
428:
296:
240:
24:
196:
530:
497:
351:
288:
550:
460:
432:
420:
347:
280:
236:
200:
192:
145:
118:, or people who choose not to work overtime because they would have to pay higher
160:
50:
42:
559:
292:
155:
34:
424:
77:
46:
205:
181:"The disposition effect in securities trading: an experimental analysis"
300:
69:
56:
The disposition effect can be minimized by a mental approach called "
284:
115:
522:
28:
38:
that have lost value yet sell stocks that have gained value."
119:
49:
traced the cause of the disposition effect to the so-called "
483:
316:
314:
312:
310:
307:
373:
528:
453:
125:
445:: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of September 2024 (
256:
254:
252:
250:
220:
557:
489:
260:
185:Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
382:"Behavioural Finance – The disposition effect"
247:
226:
179:Weber, Martin; Camerer, Colin (January 1995).
410:
321:Barberis, Nicholas; Xiong, Wei (April 2009).
320:
178:
92:
496:. Cambridge University Press. p. 372.
341:
274:
204:
490:Kahneman, Daniel; Tversky, Amos (2003).
551:A list of published papers on the topic
558:
510:from the original on 29 November 2017
392:from the original on 13 January 2017
361:from the original on 12 August 2017
13:
471:from the original on 24 March 2017
241:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1985.tb05002.x
101:
14:
587:
544:
379:
352:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2009.01448.x
126:Avoiding the disposition effect
404:
172:
1:
197:10.1016/S0167-2681(97)00089-9
166:
31:that have dropped in value.
23:is an anomaly discovered in
7:
493:Choices, Values, and Frames
134:
63:
10:
592:
571:Decision-making paradoxes
93:Shefrin and Statman study
151:Escalation of commitment
427:(inactive 2024-09-17).
425:10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.9
330:The Journal of Finance
229:The Journal of Finance
68:Nicholas Barberis and
461:"Disposition Effect"
386:The Marshall Society
141:Cognitive dissonance
465:Behavioural Finance
566:Behavioral finance
380:Joshi, Alexander.
25:behavioral finance
21:disposition effect
583:
576:Cognitive biases
539:
538:
526:
520:
519:
517:
515:
487:
481:
480:
478:
476:
457:
451:
450:
444:
436:
408:
402:
401:
399:
397:
377:
371:
370:
368:
366:
360:
345:
327:
318:
305:
304:
278:
258:
245:
244:
224:
218:
217:
215:
213:
208:
176:
146:Endowment effect
591:
590:
586:
585:
584:
582:
581:
580:
556:
555:
547:
542:
527:
523:
513:
511:
504:
488:
484:
474:
472:
459:
458:
454:
438:
437:
409:
405:
395:
393:
378:
374:
364:
362:
358:
343:10.1.1.318.3772
325:
319:
308:
285:10.2307/1914185
276:10.1.1.592.6674
259:
248:
225:
221:
211:
209:
177:
173:
169:
161:Status quo bias
137:
128:
104:
102:Prospect theory
95:
66:
58:hedonic framing
51:prospect theory
43:Daniel Kahneman
17:
12:
11:
5:
589:
579:
578:
573:
568:
554:
553:
546:
545:External links
543:
541:
540:
521:
502:
482:
452:
403:
372:
336:(2): 751–784.
306:
269:(2): 263–291.
246:
235:(3): 777–790.
219:
191:(2): 167–184.
170:
168:
165:
164:
163:
158:
153:
148:
143:
136:
133:
127:
124:
103:
100:
94:
91:
65:
62:
16:Cognitive bias
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
588:
577:
574:
572:
569:
567:
564:
563:
561:
552:
549:
548:
536:
532:
525:
509:
505:
503:9780521627498
499:
495:
494:
486:
470:
466:
462:
456:
448:
442:
434:
430:
426:
422:
418:
414:
407:
391:
387:
383:
376:
357:
353:
349:
344:
339:
335:
331:
324:
317:
315:
313:
311:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
277:
272:
268:
264:
257:
255:
253:
251:
242:
238:
234:
230:
223:
207:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
175:
171:
162:
159:
157:
156:Loss aversion
154:
152:
149:
147:
144:
142:
139:
138:
132:
123:
121:
117:
112:
108:
99:
90:
86:
82:
79:
74:
71:
61:
59:
54:
52:
48:
44:
39:
36:
35:Hersh Shefrin
32:
30:
26:
22:
524:
512:. Retrieved
492:
485:
473:. Retrieved
464:
455:
441:cite journal
419:(20): 5–20.
416:
412:
406:
394:. Retrieved
385:
375:
363:. Retrieved
333:
329:
266:
263:Econometrica
262:
232:
228:
222:
210:. Retrieved
206:10419/161406
188:
184:
174:
129:
113:
109:
105:
96:
87:
83:
78:stock market
75:
67:
55:
47:Amos Tversky
40:
33:
20:
18:
560:Categories
514:12 January
475:11 January
396:11 January
365:11 January
212:30 October
167:References
338:CiteSeerX
293:0012-9682
271:CiteSeerX
70:Wei Xiong
41:In 1979,
508:Archived
469:Archived
433:56028710
390:Archived
356:Archived
135:See also
116:interest
64:Overview
535:3275998
413:Decyzje
301:1914185
533:
500:
431:
340:
299:
291:
273:
29:assets
429:S2CID
359:(PDF)
326:(PDF)
297:JSTOR
120:taxes
531:SSRN
516:2017
498:ISBN
477:2017
447:link
398:2017
367:2017
334:LXIV
289:ISSN
214:2020
45:and
19:The
421:doi
348:doi
281:doi
237:doi
201:hdl
193:doi
60:".
562::
506:.
467:.
463:.
443:}}
439:{{
417:10
415:.
388:.
384:.
354:.
346:.
332:.
328:.
309:^
295:.
287:.
279:.
267:47
265:.
249:^
233:40
231:.
199:.
189:33
187:.
183:.
537:.
518:.
479:.
449:)
435:.
423::
400:.
369:.
350::
303:.
283::
243:.
239::
216:.
203::
195::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.