Dynamic Inconsistency in Risky Choice: Evidence from the Lab and Field

We document a robust dynamic inconsistency in risky choice. Using a unique brokerage dataset and a series of experiments, we compare people's initial risk-taking plans to their subsequent decisions. Across settings, people accept risk as part of a loss-exit strategy—planning to continue taking risk after gains and stopping after losses. Actual behavior deviates from initial strategies by cutting gains early and chasing losses. More people accept risk when offered a commitment to their initial strategy. Our results help reconcile seemingly contradictory findings on risk-taking in static versus dynamic contexts. We explore implications for theory and welfare. (JEL D81, G13, G24, G41)

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
American Economic Review
Published
2024-12-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20210307
Citations
11
Primary Topic
Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.82
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Dynamic Inconsistency in Risky Choice: Evidence from the Lab and Field

Alex Imas, Martin Weber, Rawley Heimer, Zwetelina Iliewa
11 citations
American Economic Review
Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
4.82
article

Dynamic Inconsistency in Risky Choice: Evidence from the Lab and Field

Alex Imas, Martin Weber, Rawley Heimer, Zwetelina Iliewa
article en
11 citations

Abstract

We document a robust dynamic inconsistency in risky choice. Using a unique brokerage dataset and a series of experiments, we compare people's initial risk-taking plans to their subsequent decisions. Across settings, people accept risk as part of a loss-exit strategy—planning to continue taking risk after gains and stopping after losses. Actual behavior deviates from initial strategies by cutting gains early and chasing losses. More people accept risk when offered a commitment to their initial strategy. Our results help reconcile seemingly contradictory findings on risk-taking in static versus dynamic contexts. We explore implications for theory and welfare. (JEL D81, G13, G24, G41)

American Economic ReviewVol. 115(1)
University of Bonn (DE), University of Mannheim (DE), University of Chicago (US), Arizona State University (US)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
4.82
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.