Study of Loss Aversion Theory Based on Connected Papers AI

Rahmah Dianti Putri; Mahatma Kufepaksi; Prakarsa Panjinegara

doi:10.32535/jicp.v8i7.4723

Study of Loss Aversion Theory Based on Connected Papers AI

Rahmah Dianti Putri, Mahatma Kufepaksi, Prakarsa Panjinegara

Abstract

This study aims to analyze loss aversion behavioral bias in the capital market by utilizing artificial intelligence technology. The method used in this study is a literature review, and the literature sources were obtained using Connected Papers AI by entering the keyword “Loss Aversion.” Next, several recommended article titles related to the keyword will appear. In this study, the author chose the article title “Behavioral Risk Profiling: Measuring Loss Aversion of Individual Investors” as the main article. Then, Connected Papers AI created a visualization graph of articles that have a strong relationship with the reference article in terms of co-citation and bibliography merging. The author used the articles based on the visualization graph to create a literature review. From the visualization results, it can be seen that research on loss aversion is rooted in decision-making theory under risk, based on the prospect theory framework. aversion in time frame or social conditions.

Full Text:

PDF

References

Abdellaoui, M. (2000). Parameter-free elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions. Management science, 46(11), 1497-1512.

Beam, E. A., Masatlioglu, Y., Watson, T., & Yang, D. (2022). Loss aversion or lack of trust: Why does loss framing work to encourage preventative health behaviors? (No. w29828). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Blake, D., Cannon, E., & Wright, D. (2021). Quantifying loss aversion: evidence from a UK population survey. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 63(1), 27-57.

Bleichrodt, H. (2022). The prevention puzzle. The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, 47(2), 277.

Bleichrodt, H., & Pinto, J. L. (2000). A parameter-free elicitation of the probability weighting function in medical decision analysis. Management science, 46(11), 1485-1496.

Bocquého, G., Jacob, J., & Brunette, M. (2023). Prospect theory in multiple price list experiments: further insights on behaviour in the loss domain. Theory and Decision, 94(4), 593-636.

Booij, A. S., & Van de Kuilen, G. (2009). A parameter-free analysis of the utility of money for the general population under prospect theory. Journal of Economic psychology, 30(4), 651-666.

Bouchouicha, R., Deer, L., Eid, A. G., McGee, P., Schoch, D., Stojic, H., ... & Vieider, F. M. (2019). Gender effects for loss aversion: Yes, no, maybe?. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 59(2), 171-184.

Gisbert-Perez, J., Martí-Vilar, M., & González-Sala, F. (2022, October). Prospect theory: A bibliometric and systematic review in the categories of psychology in web of science. In Healthcare (Vol. 10, No. 10, p. 2098). MDPI.

Huang, X., Nagarajan, M., & Guo, S. (2021). Probability Weighting and the Newsvendor Problem: Theory and Evidence. Available at SSRN 3937363.

Kahneman, T. (1979). D. kahneman, a. tversky. Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk, 263-291.

Kemel, E., & Mun, S. (2024). (In) Consistency of Beliefs and Attitudes Under Uncertainty: Every Cloud has a Silver Lining. Available at SSRN 5016158.

Köbberling, V., & Wakker, P. P. (2005). An index of loss aversion. Journal of Economic Theory, 122(1), 119-131.

K?szegi, B., & Rabin, M. (2006). A model of reference-dependent preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(4), 1133-1165.

Lipman, S. A., Brouwer, W. B., & Attema, A. E. (2019). QALYs without bias? Nonparametric correction of time trade?off and standard gamble weights based on prospect theory. Health Economics, 28(7), 843-854.

Lipman, S. A., Brouwer, W. B., & Attema, A. E. (2019). The corrective approach: policy implications of recent developments in QALY measurement based on prospect theory. Value in Health, 22(7), 816-821.

Liu, C., & Ali, N. L. (2022). Co-citation and bibliographic coupling based on connected papers: review of public opinion research in a broad sense in the west. Asian Social Science, 18(7), 29.

Martín-Cervantes, P. A., & Valls Martínez, M. D. C. (2023). Unraveling the relationship between betas and ESG scores through the Random Forests methodology. Risk Management, 25(3), 18.

Starmer, C. (2000). Developments in non-expected utility theory: The hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of economic literature, 38(2), 332-382.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and uncertainty, 5, 297-323.

Van Dolder, D., & Vandenbroucke, J. (2024). Behavioral risk profiling: Measuring loss aversion of individual investors. Journal of Banking & Finance, 168, 107293.

Wakker, P. P. (2010). Prospect theory: For risk and ambiguity. Cambridge university press.

Wakker, P., & Deneffe, D. (1996). Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern utilities when probabilities are distorted or unknown. Management science, 42(8), 1131-1150.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32535/jicp.v8i7.4723

Refbacks

There are currently no refbacks.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Published by:

AIBPM Publisher

Editorial Office:

JL. Kahuripan No. 9 Hotel Sahid Montana, Malang, Indonesia
Phone:+62 341 366222
Email: journal.jicp@gmail.com
Website:http://ejournal.aibpmjournals.com/index.php/JICP

Supported by: Association of International Business & Professional Management

If you are interested to get the journal subscription you can contact us at admin@aibpm.org.

ISSN 2622-0989 (Print)
ISSN 2621-993X (Online)

DOI:Prefix 10.32535 by CrossREF

Journal of International Conference Proceedings (JICP) INDEXED: