The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Individual Preferences, Monetary Gambles, and Stock Market Participation: A Case for Narrow Framing
Abstract
We argue that “narrow framing,” whereby an agent who is offered a new gamble evaluates that gamble in isolation, may be a more important feature of decision-making than previously realized. Our starting point is the evidence that people are often averse to a small, independent gamble, even when the gamble is actuarially favorable. We find that a surprisingly wide range of utility functions, including many nonexpected utility specifications, have trouble explaining this evidence, but that this difficulty can be overcome by allowing for narrow framing. Our analysis makes predictions as to what kinds of preferences can most easily address the stock market participation puzzle.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7455683 · Cited by 18,497
Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00122574 · Cited by 15,467
Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics
Kahneman, D. (2003) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/000282803322655392 · Cited by 5,377
Equity Portfolio Diversification
Goetzmann, W. N., & Kumar, A. (2008) · Review of Finance · doi:10.1093/rof/rfn005 · Cited by 1,222
Risk Aversion, Wealth, and Background Risk
Guiso, L., & Paiella, M. (2008) · Journal of the European Economic Association · doi:10.1162/jeea.2008.6.6.1109 · Cited by 1,057
The Effect of Myopia and Loss Aversion on Risk Taking: An Experimental Test
Thaler, R. H., Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., & Schwartz, A. (1997) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355397555226 · Cited by 1,051
Self-citationEstimating Risk Preferences from Deductible Choice
Cohen, A., & Einav, L. (2007) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.97.3.745 · Cited by 708
WHO IS ‘BEHAVIORAL’? COGNITIVE ABILITY AND ANOMALOUS PREFERENCES
Benjamin, D. J., Brown, S. A., & Shapiro, J. M. (2013) · Journal of the European Economic Association · doi:10.1111/jeea.12055 · Cited by 690
Cited by
Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field
DellaVigna, S. (2009) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.47.2.315 · Cited by 2,365
Stocks as Lotteries: The Implications of Probability Weighting for Security Prices
Barberis, N., & Huang, M. (2008) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.98.5.2066 · Cited by 1,544
Self-citationEquity Portfolio Diversification
Goetzmann, W. N., & Kumar, A. (2008) · Review of Finance · doi:10.1093/rof/rfn005 · Cited by 1,222
Risk Aversion, Wealth, and Background Risk
Guiso, L., & Paiella, M. (2008) · Journal of the European Economic Association · doi:10.1162/jeea.2008.6.6.1109 · Cited by 1,057
Estimating Risk Preferences from Deductible Choice
Cohen, A., & Einav, L. (2007) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.97.3.745 · Cited by 708
Metadata
- Authors
- Barberis, N., Huang, M., & Thaler, R.
- Venue
- The American Economic Review
- Publisher
- American Economic Association
- Published
- 2006-09-01
- Volume
- 96
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1069-1090
- ISSN
- 0002-8282 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3121491933
- Cited by
- 600
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 12.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Individual Preferences, Monetary Gambles, and Stock Market Participation: A Case for Narrow Framing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1257/000282806779468652
- The paper
- Barberis, N., Huang, M., & Thaler, R. (2006). Individual Preferences, Monetary Gambles, and Stock Market Participation: A Case for Narrow Framing. The American Economic Review. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282806779468652
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
