  People are often reluctant to sell a house, or shares of stock, below the
price at which they originally bought it. While this is generally not
consistent with rational utility maximization, it does reflect two strong
empirical regularities that are central to the behavioral science of human
decision-making: a tendency to evaluate outcomes relative to a reference point
determined by context (in this case the original purchase price), and the
phenomenon of loss aversion in which people are particularly prone to avoid
outcomes below the reference point. Here we explore the implications of
reference points and loss aversion in optimal stopping problems, where people
evaluate a sequence of options in one pass, either accepting the option and
stopping the search or giving up on the option forever. The best option seen so
far sets a reference point that shifts as the search progresses, and a biased
decision-maker's utility incurs an additional penalty when they accept a later
option that is below this reference point.
  We formulate and study a behaviorally well-motivated version of the optimal
stopping problem that incorporates these notions of reference dependence and
loss aversion. We obtain tight bounds on the performance of a biased agent in
this model relative to the best option obtainable in retrospect (a type of
prophet inequality for biased agents), as well as tight bounds on the ratio
between the performance of a biased agent and the performance of a rational
one. We further establish basic monotonicity results, and show an exponential
gap between the performance of a biased agent in a stopping problem with
respect to a worst-case versus a random order. As part of this, we establish
fundamental differences between optimal stopping problems for rational versus
biased agents, and these differences inform our analysis.
