Document Type

Article

Publication Date

9-14-2024

Abstract

A robust finding in managerial accounting research is that participants prefer economically equivalent contracts framed as bonuses to penalties. Another finding is that participants put forth more effort when facing penalty contracts than equivalent bonus contracts. Both results are commonly described as due to loss aversion, an integral portion of Prospect Theory. We test whether loss aversion is correlated with higher effort in an experiment with two parts. In the first part, we elicit individual participants' loss aversion using two measures. In the second part of the experiment, participants choose costly efforts to increase the likelihood of high versus low state-contingent payoffs framed as bonuses or penalties. We find significant differences in the effort chosen between treatments: participants put in significantly more effort when facing penalty contracts. However, we find no evidence that either measure's degree of loss aversion correlates with effort choices as predicted by Prospect Theory. We find that only a quarter of participants are consistent with the Prospect Theory, and for those, we see little evidence of the commonly cited features of loss aversion. While the most cited reason for framing incentives changing participant behavior is loss aversion, our results suggest that this reason is falsified. While the results from prior studies are replicable, the untested underlying mechanism is not loss aversion.

Comments

ESI Working Paper 24-14

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.