I’m glad for this article because it sparked the conversation about the relevance of behavioral economics. I also agree with Scott’s criticism of it (which unfortunately isn’t part of the review). But together they made for a great update on the state of behavioral economics.
I checked if there’s something new in the literature since these articles were published, and found this paper by three of the authors who wrote the 2020 article Scott wrote about in his article. They conclude that “the evidence of loss aversion that we report in this paper and in Mrkva et al. (2020) reject the idea that loss aversion is a “fallacy”” as the 2018 paper Hreha cited called it. The experimental design seems to be very thoughtful and careful, but I found the paper hard to understand and would have to invest a lot more to really understand and judge it. Perhaps someone else more in the know can do that.
I gave this post +4 cause I think the discussion (including the responses) is important, even though I think the article itself was quite lacking. Not sure how to reconcile that. But I sure wouldn’t put it in a book or best-of sequence.
I’m glad for this article because it sparked the conversation about the relevance of behavioral economics. I also agree with Scott’s criticism of it (which unfortunately isn’t part of the review). But together they made for a great update on the state of behavioral economics.
I checked if there’s something new in the literature since these articles were published, and found this paper by three of the authors who wrote the 2020 article Scott wrote about in his article. They conclude that “the evidence of loss aversion that we report in this paper and in Mrkva et al. (2020) reject the idea that loss aversion is a “fallacy”” as the 2018 paper Hreha cited called it. The experimental design seems to be very thoughtful and careful, but I found the paper hard to understand and would have to invest a lot more to really understand and judge it. Perhaps someone else more in the know can do that.
I gave this post +4 cause I think the discussion (including the responses) is important, even though I think the article itself was quite lacking. Not sure how to reconcile that. But I sure wouldn’t put it in a book or best-of sequence.