進階搜尋


   電子論文尚未授權公開,紙本請查館藏目錄
(※如查詢不到或館藏狀況顯示「閉架不公開」,表示該本論文不在書庫,無法取用。)
系統識別號 U0026-1202201913083000
論文名稱(中文) Myopic Loss Aversion on the Wholesale Contract: The Comparison of Students and Professionals in Simulated Retailer's Order
論文名稱(英文) Myopic Loss Aversion on the Wholesale Contract: The Comparison of Students and Professionals in Simulated Retailer's Order
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 國際經營管理研究所碩士在職專班
系所名稱(英) Institute of International Management (IIMBA--Master)(on the job class)
學年度 107
學期 1
出版年 108
研究生(中文) 劉麗珍
研究生(英文) LI CHEN LIU
學號 RA7051253
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
論文頁數 51頁
口試委員 指導教授-張巍勳
召集委員-溫敏杰
口試委員-謝惠璟
中文關鍵字 短視  損失趨避  報童  信息反饋  專業人士  學生  訂購決策  學習效應 
英文關鍵字 Myopic  Loss aversion  Newsvendor  Information feedback  Professionals  Students  Ordering decision  Learning effect. 
學科別分類
中文摘要 這項研究延續了前人檢視在報童決策情境下受短視損失趨避影響的探討。專業人士通常被認為比學生更為理性,因此本研究強調專業人士與學生之間訂購決策的差異。為了檢驗信息反饋對短視損失趨避的影響,我們採用zTree(Fischbacher,2007)程式設定,並於實驗室進行訂購模擬實驗,其中91名學生和42名專業人員參與此項實驗,總共產生6,650個訂購決策。實驗結果顯示,專業人士的訂量低於學生,這表示專業人士在面對報童問題時,其短視損失趨避程度高於學生。而得到信息反饋的訂購決策者其訂購數量低於未獲信息反饋的訂購決策者,這解釋了獲得損益信息反饋的受試者其訂購決策受到短視損失趨避的顯著影響。透過零售商訂購決策的觀察,該實驗同時提出顯著的學習效應。專業人士不一定能做出最佳決策,這項研究有助於在供應鏈範疇以不同角度對決策行為的觀察,值得學術界和私營企業的關注。
英文摘要 This research extends previous studies to examine the impact of myopic loss aversion under the scenario of newsvendor decision. As professionals are generally expected to be more rationale than students, this research highlights the variance of ordering decision between professionals and students. To examine the impact of feedback on myopic loss aversion, we conducted a laboratory experiment programmed in zTree (Fischbacher, 2007) in which 6,650 ordering decisions were generated from 91 students and 42 professionals. The test outcome shows that professionals order lower than students, that implies that professionals have a greater magnitude of myopic loss aversion than students when facing newsvendor issue. The result displays that ordering decision with feedback has a lower order quantity than those without feedback, that interprets subjects ordering with gain-loss feedbacks are significantly affected by myopic loss aversion. The experiment also suggests a significant learning effect in observation of the retailer’s ordering decision. This research is noteworthy to both academia and the private sector as it contributes to the decision behavior from the different angles in the supply chain to the expanse that professionals do not necessarily make their decision optimally.
論文目次 中文摘要 I
ABSTRACT II
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS III
TABLE OF CONTENTS IV
LIST OF TABLES VI
LIST OF FIGURES VII
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Research Background. 1
1.2 Research Objective & Questions. 3
1.3 Research Procedure. 4
1.4 Research Structure. 5
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 6
2.1 Myopic Loss Aversion. 6
2.2 Newsvendor Model Problem. 8
2.3 Information Feedback vs Myopic Loss Aversion. 9
2.4 Professionals versus Students. 10
2.5 Learning Effect. 11
2.6 Hypothesis Development. 12
CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 14
3.1 Experiment Design. 14
3.2 Treatment Parameters. 16
CHAPTER FOUR RESEARCH RESULTS 19
4.1 Descriptive Analysis. 19
4.2 Test of Hypothesis. 21
4.2.1 Test on Both Groups of Subjects. 22
4.2.2 Test on Student Group. 24
4.2.3 Test on Professional Group. 28
4.2.4 Comparison between Professionals and Students. 30
4.3. Result Summary. 32
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS 34
5.1 Conclusion. 34
5.2 Managerial Implication. 35
5.3 Limitations. 35
5.4 Suggestions. 36
REFERENCES 37
APPENDICES 40
Appendix 1: Experimental Instruction in English 40
Appendix 2: Experiment instruction in Chinese 45
Appendix 3: Experiment Participation agreement 48
Appendix 4: Receipt for participation 50
Appendix 5: Treatment parameters 51
參考文獻 REFERENCES
Abdellaoui, M., Bleichrodt, H., & Paraschiv, C. (2007). Loss aversion under prospect theory: A parameter-free measurement. Management Science, 53(10), 1659-1674.
Becker-Peth, M., Katok, E., & Thonemann, U. W. (2013). Designing buyback contracts for irrational but predictable Newsvendors. Management Science, 59(8), 1800-1816.
Bellemare, C., Krause, M., Kröger, S., & Zhang, C. (2003). Myopic loss aversion, information dissemination, and the equity premium puzzle. Working paper.
Bellemare, C., Krause, M., Kröger, S., & Zhang, C. (2005). Myopic loss aversion: Information feedback vs. investment flexibility. Economics Letters, 87(3), 319-324.
Benartzi, S., & Thaler, R. H. (1995). Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(1), 73-92.
Benzion, U., Cohen, Y., Peled, R., & Shavit, T. (2008). Decision-making and the newsvendor problem: an experimental study. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 59(9), 1281-1287.
Bolton, G. E., & Katok, E. (2008). Learning by doing in the newsvendor problem: A laboratory investigation of the role of experience and feedback. M&Som-Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 10(3), 519-538.
Bolton, G. E., Ockenfels, A., & Thonemann, U. W. (2012). Managers and students as newsvendors. Management Science, 58(12), 2225-2233.
Bostian, A. J. A., Holt, C. A., & Smith, A. M. (2008). Newsvendor "Pull-to-center" effect: Adaptive learning in a laboratory experiment. M&Som-Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 10(4), 590-608.
Castaneda, J. A., & Goncalves, P. (2018). Ordering behavior in a newsstand experiment. International Journal of Production Economics, 197(0), 186-196.
Debondt, W. F. M., & Thaler, R. (1985). Does the stock-market overreact Journal of Finance, 40(3), 793-805.
Dutta, P., Chakraborty, D., & Roy, A. R. (2005). A single-period inventory model with fuzzy random variable demand. Mathematical and computer modelling, 41(8-9), 915-922.
Elahi, E., Lamba, N., & Ramaswamy, C. (2013). How can we improve the performance of supply chain contracts? An experimental study. International Journal of Production Economics, 142(1), 146-157.
Erev, I., & Haruvy, E. (2013). Learning and the economics of small decisions. The handbook of experimental economics, 2(0), 3-28.
Erev, I., & Roth, A. E. (1998). Predicting how people play games: Reinforcement learning in experimental games with unique, mixed strategy equilibria. American Economic Review(0), 848-881.
Fellner, G., & Sutter, M. (2009). Causes, consequences, and cures of myopic loss aversion – An experimental investigation. The Economic Journal, 119(537), 900-916.
Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171-178.
Gneezy, U., & Potters, J. (1997). An experiment on risk taking and evaluation periods. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 631–645.
Haigh, M. S., & List, J. A. (2005). Do professional traders exhibit myopic loss aversion? An experimental analysis. Journal of Finance, 60(1), 523-534.
Ho, T. H., Lim, N., & Cui, T. H. (2010). Reference dependence in multilocation newsvendor models: A structural analysis. Management Science, 56(11), 1891-1910.
Huang, M. T. (2011). Laboratory experiments on investments in foreign assets: Tests of myopic loss aversion hypothesis. Chung Yuan Christian University; Department of International Business - Master thesis, 1-52.
Iakovou, E., Vlachos, D., & Xanthopoulos, A. (2010). A stochastic inventory management model for a dual sourcing supply chain with disruptions. International Journal of Systems Science, 41(3), 315-324.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1325-1348.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory - Analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341-350.
Katok, E., & Wu, D. Y. (2009). Contracting in supply chains: A laboratory Investigation. Management Science, 55(12), 1953-1968.
Khanra, A., Soman, C., & Bandyopadhyay, T. (2014). Sensitivity analysis of the newsvendor model. European Journal of Operational Research, 239(2), 403-412.
Khouja, M. (1999). The single-period (news-vendor) problem: Literature review and suggestions for future research. Omega-International Journal of Management Science, 27(5), 537-553.
Lam, M. H., & Chang, W.-S. (2018). Myopic loss aversion: Evidence from supply chain contracting. R&R.
Langer, T., & Weber, M. (2005). Myopic prospect theory vs. myopic loss aversion: How general is the phenomenon? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 56(1), 25-38.
Langer, T., & Weber, M. (2008). Does commitment or feedback influence myopic loss aversion? An experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 67(3-4), 810-819.
Lee, B., & Veld-Merkoulova, Y. (2016). Myopic loss aversion and stock investments: An empirical study of private investors. Journal of Banking & Finance, 70(0), 235-246.
Lee, C. Y., Li, X., & Yu, M. Z. (2015). The Loss-averse newsvendor problem with supply Options. Naval Research Logistics, 62(1), 46-59.
List, J. A. (2004). Neoclassical theory versus prospect theory: Evidence from the marketplace. Econometrica, 72(2), 615-625.
Lurie, N. H., & Swaminathan, J. M. (2009). Is timely information always better? The effect of feedback frequency on decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 315-329.
Mayhew, B. W., & Vitalis, A. (2014). Myopic loss aversion and market experience. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 97(0), 113-125.
Mieghem, J. A. V., & Rudi, N. (2002). Newsvendor networks: Inventory management and capacity investment with discretionary activities. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 4(4), 313-335.
Moritz, B. B., Hill, A. V., & Donohue, K. L. (2013). Individual differences in the newsvendor problem: Behavior and cognitive reflection. Journal of Operations Management, 31(1-2), 72-85.
Nash, J. F., Nagel, R., Ockenfels, A., & Selten, R. (2012). The agencies method for coalition formation in experimental games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(50), 20358-20363.
Qin, Y., Wang, R. X., Vakharia, A. J., Chen, Y. W., & Seref, M. M. H. (2011). The newsvendor problem: Review and directions for future research. European Journal of Operational Research, 213(2), 361-374.
Rudi, N., & Drake, D. (2014). Observation Bias: The impact of demand censoring on newsvendor level and adjustment behavior. Management Science, 60(5), 1334-1345.
Samuelson, P. A. (1963). Risk and uncertainty - A fallacy of large numbers. Scientia, 98(612), 108-&.
Schweitzer, M. E., & Cachon, G. P. (2000). Decision bias in the newsvendor problem with a known demand distribution: Experimental evidence. Management Science, 46(3), 404-420.
Selten, R. (1978). The chain store paradox. Theory and Decision, 9(2), 127-159.
Swaminathan, J. M., & Tayur, S. R. (2003). Models for supply chains in e-business. Management Science, 49(10), 1387-1406.
Thaler, R. H., Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., & Schwartz, A. (1997). The effect of myopia and loss aversion on risk taking: An experimental test. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 647-661.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in law of small numbers Psychological Bulletin, 76(2), 105-110.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect-theory - Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297-323.
Venkatraman, S., Aloysius, J. A., & Davis, F. D. (2006). Multiple prospect framing and decision behavior: The mediational roles of perceived riskiness and perceived ambiguity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(1), 59-73.
Whitin, T. M. (1955). Inventory control and price theory. In Management Science (Vol. 2 (1), pp. 61–68 .).
Zeisberger, S., Langer, T., & Weber, M. (2012). Why does myopia decrease the willingness to invest? Is it myopic loss aversion or myopic loss probability aversion? Theory and Decision, 72(1), 35-50.

論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2024-01-01起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2024-01-01起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw