Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: Amos Tversky

16721_7.17_000010007327XSmall

Good investing takes us to our emotions. But not quite how you might expect.

Our brains don’t like random events. Instead, we prefer patterns, especially pleasing patterns. For basketball, that means streaks. According to one statistical study of the 76ers and the Boston Celtics, players do not really have “hot hands.” But our brains experience more pleasure when we attribute a streak to a player.

Similarly, for investing, because we perceive rising stock prices as a pattern, we feel pleasure. Then, for tech stocks, or gold, or houses, the higher the market goes, the more satisfaction participants get from being a part of its ascent. In fact, many of us get so much delight from our “dopamine rich” brain centers that we forget we could be in a bubble.

Consequently, as science writer Jonah Lehrer tells us in a Wired column, and in How We Decide, the quest for “lucrative patterns” when events are actually random can lead us astray. Maybe that is why “the best shooters always think they’re cold” and the best investors question a skyrocketing market.

The Economic Lesson

For his behavioral research, psychologist Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2002. Demonstrating that our decisions are more irrational than traditional economists tend to believe, Dr. Kahneman described the “systemic patterns” that we create when we respond illogically.

For example, his work displayed that we care more about losses than gains and the “frame” for a question shapes its answer. As a result, told that an investment of $1,000 could lose 50% people typically reject the idea. On the other hand, we tend to say, “Yes,” when told an investment could gain 50%.  Here, the NY Times ideally describes his work.

An Economic Question: Similar to basketball shooting streaks, where else have you seen people try to create patterns where none exist?

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

15857_7.8_000000061495XSmall

Let’s assume you would like to sell your house. According to Wired journalist Jonah Lehrer, the price you select might not be optimal. Why? Because we like to avoid losing money. (Of course, you might say, that is obvious. But an economist would suggest that a rational person would grasp the reality of the current housing market.)

People who purchased homes during the housing bubble probably paid much more for them than their current market value. According to Lehrer, these people have a tendency to price their homes much higher than others who made housing purchases after the height of the housing bubble. The reason is “loss aversion”. Only when houses are more realistically priced will the housing market recover.

The Economic Lesson

Loss aversion was first identified by economics Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman (a psychologist) and Amos Tversky during the 1970s. In one experiment they gave subjects two sets of alternatives. Worded differently, both actually were identical. However, for the first pair, option “A” said out of 600 people, 200 will be saved. With the second pair, the first option said that out of 600 people, 400 will die. Presented the first pair, people chose “A”. However, for the second pair they rejected that first option. According to Kahneman and Tversky, “losses loom larger than gains” and people are not always the rational decision makers that classical economists cite.

Loss aversion can also explain most investors’ behavior when faced with a losing investment. It also can explain capuchin monkey behavior.

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , ,
Comments (1) Add a Comment