Decision Making
Investment Feedback Task
Also called: myopic loss aversion task, myopic loss aversion experiment, evaluation period experiment, feedback frequency experiment, Gneezy-Potters investment task
Measure how often seeing results changes risk taking: invest points round by round, with results after every round or every three rounds, and compare the shares invested.
4-6 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 45
- Evidence grade
- D
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
What it measures
Measures how often seeing results changes investment in a risky option. Each round, participants invest any part of 100 points in an option that loses the amount (2 in 3 chance) or gains 2.5 times it (1 in 3 chance). With frequent feedback they choose and see every round; with infrequent feedback one choice covers three rounds and only the combined result is shown.
Constructs
- Myopic loss aversion
- Risk taking
- Evaluation period and narrow framing
- Learning from feedback
Research uses
- Behavioral economics and finance research
- Research on decisions under risk
- Comparing feedback designs within a study
How the paradigm works
The Investment Feedback Task measures how the frequency of feedback changes investment in a risky option with a positive expected return. Gneezy and Potters (1997) gave people a new endowment in each round to invest in an option that lost the amount with probability 2/3 or gained 2.5 times it with probability 1/3. People who chose and saw the result every round invested less than people who fixed one amount for three rounds and saw only the combined result, the pattern myopic loss aversion predicts (Benartzi and Thaler, 1995).
More about the paradigm
This version uses our own points, wording and screens. Each round gives 100 new points, and points from earlier rounds cannot be invested. With frequent feedback the participant chooses each round and sees its result; with infrequent feedback one amount covers three rounds and only their combined result is shown. As standard, every participant plays both schedules, 9 rounds each, in an order drawn from the session's seed. A setting runs one schedule for every participant, for comparisons between groups as in the source, and another sets 6 to 30 rounds per schedule. Outcomes are drawn from the seed before play. One check question with feedback comes first, and there is no time limit.
Scores
- Feedback Effect on Investment%
- Mean share of a round's points invested with infrequent feedback minus the share with frequent feedback, in percentage points. Null unless both schedules were played.
- Positive: more invested when results come every three rounds, as in the source
- Investment, Frequent Feedback%
- Mean share of the round's 100 points invested when each round is chosen and shown alone.
- Informational
- Investment, Infrequent Feedback%
- Mean share invested when one amount covers three rounds and only their combined result is shown.
- Informational
- Mean Investment%
- Share of points invested over all rounds of the run, each choice weighted by the rounds it covers.
- Informational
- Total Pointspoints
- Points kept and gained over all rounds, recomputed from the amounts and the outcomes drawn.
- Depends on the outcomes drawn; informational
- Check Correctflag
- 1 for a correct answer to the check about a gain, 0 for a wrong answer.
- A wrong answer is flagged for review
- Median Choice Timems
- Median time to confirm an amount, over choices at or after 100 ms.
- Informational
- Choices Under 100 mscount
- Amounts confirmed less than 100 ms after the screen appeared.
- 0 expected
- Choices Completedcount
- Readable confirmed amounts in the scored run: one per round with frequent feedback and one per three rounds with infrequent feedback.
- Fewer than planned is flagged for review
- Planned Choicescount
- Choices set before the session by the schedules and rounds.
- Informational
Use and evidence
45 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, down 10% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 375 of 582 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 10 |
| 2024 | 6 |
| 2023 | 9 |
| 2022 | 9 |
| 2021 | 11 |
| 2020 | 10 |
| 2019 | 10 |
| 2018 | 9 |
| 2017 | 8 |
| 2016 | 13 |
| 2015 | 11 |
| 2014 | 7 |
| 2013 | 13 |
| 2012 | 7 |
| 2011 | 7 |
| 2010 | 6 |
| 2009 | 12 |
| 2008 | 9 |
| 2007 | 10 |
| 2006 | 9 |
| 2005 | 9 |
| 2004 | 8 |
| 2003 | 5 |
| 2002 | 3 |
| 2001 | 0 |
| 2000 | 5 |
Use grade D
30 to 99 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade D
Little published measurement evidence found.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 0
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 1
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 0
Measured on ConductCognition
Pooled across the studies that feed our platform norms, by device group. A figure needs 50 or more people.
No pooled figure yet.
Note on the counts: includes field and theory papers.
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 10 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Rounds
- Each round gives 100 new points. The participant invests any whole number of them, from 0 to 100, on an amount bar and keeps the rest. Points from earlier rounds cannot be invested.
- Outcomes
- An investment loses the amount invested (chance 2 in 3) or gains 2.5 times it (chance 1 in 3), so each point invested adds 1/6 of a point on average. Outcomes are drawn from the session's seed before play, in a separate stream for each schedule.
- Schedules
- Frequent feedback: one choice and one result per round. Infrequent feedback: one amount for three rounds, invested in each, with only the combined result shown. Standard: both schedules, 9 rounds each, in an order drawn from the session's seed. A setting runs one schedule for comparisons between groups, and another sets 6 to 30 rounds per schedule.
- Check
- One question with feedback before the first round: a gain on 40 points invested adds 100 points, and the 40 are kept.
- Scores
- The mean share invested with infrequent feedback minus the share with frequent feedback, in percentage points; each schedule's share; the mean share over all rounds; and total points, recomputed from the amounts and the outcomes. No time limit.
- Points
- The study decides what points are worth, and the payment line says whether they are exchanged for money.
Gneezy and Potters (1997) gave 200 Dutch cents per round over 9 rounds, each group under one schedule, and drew outcomes by hand from boxes of lettered disks. This version uses 100 points per round and, as standard, both schedules for every participant, so each person's choices under the two schedules can be compared. Compare groups that saw the same settings. Scores describe choices in the task, with no percentile or diagnosis.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: confirmed investment choices. The same amount throughout is accepted. An unfinished run or a wrong check answer is flagged for review. Choices under 200 ms on at least half the choices invalidate.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. Any amount from 0 to 100 can follow from a person's attitude to risk, so repeated amounts are accepted. An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Feedback schedules | Both, in an order set by the session (standard) | Both, in an order set by the session (standard), Frequent feedback only, Infrequent feedback only |
| Groups of three rounds per schedule | 3 | 2 to 10 |
| Payment line | Hypothetical points (standard) | Hypothetical points (standard), The study pays for points |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Investment Feedback Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Gneezy U, Potters J, 1997), with the standard settings (feedback schedules: Both, in an order set by the session; groups of three rounds per schedule: 3; payment line: Hypothetical points). The main score was feedback effect on investment (mean share of a round's points invested with infrequent feedback minus the share with frequent feedback, in percentage points).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Gneezy, U., & Potters, J. (1997). An experiment on risk taking and evaluation periods. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 631-645. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355397555217The design: a new endowment each round, the 2 in 3 loss and the 2.5 times gain, and feedback every round or every three rounds.
- Benartzi, S., & Thaler, R. H. (1995). Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(1), 73-92. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118511Myopic loss aversion, the account the design tests.
Source papers
Questions
How long does the Investment Feedback Task take?
About 4 to 6 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Feedback Effect on Investment, Investment, Frequent Feedback, Investment, Infrequent Feedback, Mean Investment, Total Points, Check Correct, Median Choice Time, Choices Under 100 ms, Choices Completed and Planned Choices. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Investment Feedback Task used in research?
45 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, down 10% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 375 of 582 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade D). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 10 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Investment Feedback Task have?
In the published research, 0 papers report its test-retest reliability and 0 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade D in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Feedback schedules (Both, in an order set by the session (standard), Frequent feedback only, Infrequent feedback only), groups of three rounds per schedule (2 to 10) and payment line (Hypothetical points (standard), The study pays for points). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.
Related tests