Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research 7/2019

16-04-2018 | Review

Acceptable losses: the debatable origins of loss aversion

Auteur: Eldad Yechiam

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 7/2019

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

It is often claimed that negative events carry a larger weight than positive events. Loss aversion is the manifestation of this argument in monetary outcomes. In this review, we examine early studies of the utility function of gains and losses, and in particular the original evidence for loss aversion reported by Kahneman and Tversky (Econometrica  47:263–291, 1979). We suggest that loss aversion proponents have over-interpreted these findings. Specifically, the early studies of utility functions have shown that while very large losses are overweighted, smaller losses are often not. In addition, the findings of some of these studies have been systematically misrepresented to reflect loss aversion, though they did not find it. These findings shed light both on the inability of modern studies to reproduce loss aversion as well as a second literature arguing strongly for it.
Voetnoten
1
For instance, when selecting between a 50:50 bet for $10 or −$10 and a similar bet for $20 or −$20, people presumably pick the former option.
 
2
As evidenced in a Google Scholar search from July 2017. From 105 available full texts who cited the sentence in whole only four cited the reference.
 
3
In addition, it is extremely difficult to directly investigate the effect of large losses in an ethical fashion using actual incentives.
 
4
The tenth data point is a repeated questioning of a participant (Bill Beard) and is not included; it shows a pattern similar to that of the top left pane.
 
5
By contrast, in portfolio theory (Markowitz, 1952), this would be captured by symmetric weights to gains and losses and a risk premium—an additional cost for taking risk which increases as a function of the distance from the preferred risk level.
 
6
The subsample presented in Swalm (1966) was also somewhat biased. Participants were initially collected from two populations: a single company referred to as “Company A” and a cross-industry population. All but one of the presented participants was from Company A.
 
7
Given equal distances between objective values in a gain and loss domain a and b for alternatives 1 and 2 (e.g., a1 = 1, a2 = 10; b1 = − 1, and b2 = − 10) if one is more sensitive to the loss domain (e.g., the correlation between choices and a is higher than the respective correlation with b), then assuming a negative linear effect of losses, this implies a stronger pull effect of large losses than large gains in terms of changes in standard deviations of choices, but a symmetric weaker effect for small losses. This can change if the references point is zero (a1 = 0, b1 = 0).
 
8
In a similar vein, Harinck, Van Dijk, Van Beest, and Mersmann (2007) examined the pleasantness level associated with gains and losses, and people’s willingness to pay for lotteries involving gains and losses of different sizes. They only found increased unpleasantness compared pleasantness ratings in outcomes above 50 Euros, and similarly report loss aversion in willingness to pay for large outcomes only.
 
9
While the preferred risk level account is apparently not consistent with the findings showing risk seeking for losses and risk aversion for gains (i.e., the reflection effect; Kahnman & Tversky, 1979), these regularities are explained by other factors besides the sensitivity to variance (e.g., diminishing sensitivity to zero) which could affect choice behavior in addition to a one’s preferred risk level. Supporting this view is findings of positive association between individuals’ risk taking levels in a gain domain and a mixed domain with symmetric gains and losses demonstrating consistency in individuals’ risk preferences independently of the losses involved (e.g., Yechiam & Ert, 2011).
 
Literatuur
go back to reference Abdellaoui, M., Bleichrodt, H., & Paraschiv, C. (2007). Loss aversion under prospect theory: A parameter-free measurement. Management Science, 53, 1659–1674.CrossRef Abdellaoui, M., Bleichrodt, H., & Paraschiv, C. (2007). Loss aversion under prospect theory: A parameter-free measurement. Management Science, 53, 1659–1674.CrossRef
go back to reference Anbarci, N., Arin, K. P., Okten, C., & Zenker, C. (2017). Is Roger Federer more loss averse than Serena Williams? Applied Economics, 49, 3546–3559.CrossRef Anbarci, N., Arin, K. P., Okten, C., & Zenker, C. (2017). Is Roger Federer more loss averse than Serena Williams? Applied Economics, 49, 3546–3559.CrossRef
go back to reference Andreoni, J., Harbaugh, W., & Vesterlund, L. (2003). The carrot or the stick: Rewards, punishments, and cooperation. American Economic Review, 93, 893–902.CrossRef Andreoni, J., Harbaugh, W., & Vesterlund, L. (2003). The carrot or the stick: Rewards, punishments, and cooperation. American Economic Review, 93, 893–902.CrossRef
go back to reference Barnes, J. D., & Reinmuth, J. E. (1976). Comparing imputed and actual utility functions in a competitive bidding setting. Decision Sciences, 7, 801–812.CrossRef Barnes, J. D., & Reinmuth, J. E. (1976). Comparing imputed and actual utility functions in a competitive bidding setting. Decision Sciences, 7, 801–812.CrossRef
go back to reference Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370.CrossRef Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370.CrossRef
go back to reference Benartzi, S., & Thaler, R. H. (1995). Myopic loss-aversion and the equity premium puzzle. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 73–92.CrossRef Benartzi, S., & Thaler, R. H. (1995). Myopic loss-aversion and the equity premium puzzle. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 73–92.CrossRef
go back to reference Bereby-Meyer, Y., & Erev, I. (1998). On learning to become a successful loser: A comparison of alternative abstractions of learning processes in the loss domain. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 42, 266–286.CrossRefPubMed Bereby-Meyer, Y., & Erev, I. (1998). On learning to become a successful loser: A comparison of alternative abstractions of learning processes in the loss domain. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 42, 266–286.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Bernoulli, D. (1738 [1954]). Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Econometrica, 22, 22–36. Bernoulli, D. (1738 [1954]). Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Econometrica, 22, 22–36.
go back to reference Butler (1822). The Poems of Samuel Butler, vol 2. Chiswick: C. Whittingham. Butler (1822). The Poems of Samuel Butler, vol 2. Chiswick: C. Whittingham.
go back to reference Camerer, C. E. (1989). An experimental test of several generalized utility theories. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2, 61–104.CrossRef Camerer, C. E. (1989). An experimental test of several generalized utility theories. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2, 61–104.CrossRef
go back to reference Camerer, C. F. (2005). Three cheers—Psychological, theoretical, empirical—For loss aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 129–133.CrossRef Camerer, C. F. (2005). Three cheers—Psychological, theoretical, empirical—For loss aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 129–133.CrossRef
go back to reference Campbell, J. Y., & Cochrane, J. H. (1999). By force of habit: A consumption—Based explanation of aggregate stock market behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 107, 205–251.CrossRef Campbell, J. Y., & Cochrane, J. H. (1999). By force of habit: A consumption—Based explanation of aggregate stock market behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 107, 205–251.CrossRef
go back to reference Cason, H. (1930). Pleasant and unpleasant feelings. Psychological Review, 37, 227–240.CrossRef Cason, H. (1930). Pleasant and unpleasant feelings. Psychological Review, 37, 227–240.CrossRef
go back to reference Coombs, C. H. (1964). A Theory of Data. New York: Wiley. Coombs, C. H. (1964). A Theory of Data. New York: Wiley.
go back to reference Costantini, A. F., & Hoving, K. L. (1973). The effectiveness of reward and punishment contingencies on response inhibition. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 16, 484–494.CrossRef Costantini, A. F., & Hoving, K. L. (1973). The effectiveness of reward and punishment contingencies on response inhibition. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 16, 484–494.CrossRef
go back to reference Davidson, D., Siegel, S., & Suppes, P. (1955). Some experiments and related theory on the measurement of utility and subjective probability. Stanford Value Theory Report No. 4, August, 1955. Davidson, D., Siegel, S., & Suppes, P. (1955). Some experiments and related theory on the measurement of utility and subjective probability. Stanford Value Theory Report No. 4, August, 1955.
go back to reference Dickinson, D. L. (2001). The carrot vs. the stick in work team motivation. Experimental Economics, 4, 107–124.CrossRef Dickinson, D. L. (2001). The carrot vs. the stick in work team motivation. Experimental Economics, 4, 107–124.CrossRef
go back to reference Dodson, J. D. (1932). The relative values of satisfying and annoying situations as motives in the learning process. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 14, 147–164.CrossRef Dodson, J. D. (1932). The relative values of satisfying and annoying situations as motives in the learning process. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 14, 147–164.CrossRef
go back to reference Edgeworth, F. Y. (1877). New and old methods of ethics: Or “Physical Ethics” and“Methods of Ethics”. Oxford: James Parker. Edgeworth, F. Y. (1877). New and old methods of ethics: Or “Physical Ethics” and“Methods of Ethics”. Oxford: James Parker.
go back to reference Ert, E., & Erev, I. (2013). On the descriptive value of loss aversion in decisions under risk: Five clarifications. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 214–235. Ert, E., & Erev, I. (2013). On the descriptive value of loss aversion in decisions under risk: Five clarifications. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 214–235.
go back to reference Fennema, H., & Van Assen, M. (1999). Measuring the utility of losses by means of the tradeoff method. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 17, 277–295.CrossRef Fennema, H., & Van Assen, M. (1999). Measuring the utility of losses by means of the tradeoff method. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 17, 277–295.CrossRef
go back to reference Fishburn, P. C., & Kochenberger, G. A. (1979). Two piece Von Neumann-Morgenstern utility functions. Decision Sciences, 10, 503–518.CrossRef Fishburn, P. C., & Kochenberger, G. A. (1979). Two piece Von Neumann-Morgenstern utility functions. Decision Sciences, 10, 503–518.CrossRef
go back to reference Friedman, M., & Savage, L. J. (1948). The utility analysis of choices involving risk. Journal of political Economy, 56, 279–304.CrossRef Friedman, M., & Savage, L. J. (1948). The utility analysis of choices involving risk. Journal of political Economy, 56, 279–304.CrossRef
go back to reference Galenter, E., & Pliner, P. (1974). Cross-modality matching of money against other continua. In H. R. Moskowitz et al. (Eds.), Sensation and Measurement (pp. 65–76). Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing.CrossRef Galenter, E., & Pliner, P. (1974). Cross-modality matching of money against other continua. In H. R. Moskowitz et al. (Eds.), Sensation and Measurement (pp. 65–76). Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing.CrossRef
go back to reference Ganzach, Y., & Karsahi, N. (1995). Message framing and buyer behaviour: A field experiment. Journal of Business Research, 32, 11–17.CrossRef Ganzach, Y., & Karsahi, N. (1995). Message framing and buyer behaviour: A field experiment. Journal of Business Research, 32, 11–17.CrossRef
go back to reference Gehring, W. J., & Willoughby, A. R. (2002). The medial frontal cortex and the rapid processing of monetary gains and losses. Science, 295, 2279–2282.CrossRefPubMed Gehring, W. J., & Willoughby, A. R. (2002). The medial frontal cortex and the rapid processing of monetary gains and losses. Science, 295, 2279–2282.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Grayson, C. J. (1960). Decisions under uncertainty: drilling decisions by oil and gas operators. Cambridge: Graduate School of Business, Harvard University. Grayson, C. J. (1960). Decisions under uncertainty: drilling decisions by oil and gas operators. Cambridge: Graduate School of Business, Harvard University.
go back to reference Green, P. B. (1963). Risk attitudes and chemical investment decisions. Chemical Engineering Progress, 59, 35–40. Green, P. B. (1963). Risk attitudes and chemical investment decisions. Chemical Engineering Progress, 59, 35–40.
go back to reference Grossman, S. J., & Shiller, R. J. (1981). The determinants of the variability of stock market prices. American Economic Review, 71, 222–227. Grossman, S. J., & Shiller, R. J. (1981). The determinants of the variability of stock market prices. American Economic Review, 71, 222–227.
go back to reference Halter, A. N., & Dean, G. W. (1971). Decisions under uncertainty. Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing. Halter, A. N., & Dean, G. W. (1971). Decisions under uncertainty. Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing.
go back to reference Harinck, F., Van Dijk, E., Van Beest, I., & Mersmann, P. (2007). When gains loom larger than losses: Reversed loss aversion for small amounts of money. Psychological Science, 18, 1099–1105.CrossRefPubMed Harinck, F., Van Dijk, E., Van Beest, I., & Mersmann, P. (2007). When gains loom larger than losses: Reversed loss aversion for small amounts of money. Psychological Science, 18, 1099–1105.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Hochman, G., & Yechiam, E. (2011). Loss aversion in the eye and in the heart: The Autonomic Nervous System’s responses to losses. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24, 140–156.CrossRef Hochman, G., & Yechiam, E. (2011). Loss aversion in the eye and in the heart: The Autonomic Nervous System’s responses to losses. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24, 140–156.CrossRef
go back to reference Hossain, T., & List, J. A. (2012). The behavioralist visits the factory: Increasing productivity using simple framing manipulations. Management Science, 58, 2151–2167.CrossRef Hossain, T., & List, J. A. (2012). The behavioralist visits the factory: Increasing productivity using simple framing manipulations. Management Science, 58, 2151–2167.CrossRef
go back to reference Kacelnik, A., & Bateson, M. (1997). Risk-sensitivity: crossroads for theories of decision making. Trends in Cognitive Science, 1, 304–309.CrossRef Kacelnik, A., & Bateson, M. (1997). Risk-sensitivity: crossroads for theories of decision making. Trends in Cognitive Science, 1, 304–309.CrossRef
go back to reference Kachelmeier, S. J., & Shehata, M. (1992). Examining risk preferences under high monetary incentives: Experimental evidence from the People’s Republic of China. American Economic Review, 82, 1120–1141. Kachelmeier, S. J., & Shehata, M. (1992). Examining risk preferences under high monetary incentives: Experimental evidence from the People’s Republic of China. American Economic Review, 82, 1120–1141.
go back to reference Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
go back to reference Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase Theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 1325–1348.CrossRef Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase Theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 1325–1348.CrossRef
go back to reference Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRef Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRef
go back to reference Katz, L. (1964). Effects of differential monetary gain and loss on sequential two-choice behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 245–249.CrossRefPubMed Katz, L. (1964). Effects of differential monetary gain and loss on sequential two-choice behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 245–249.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Lejarraga, T., & Hertwig, R. (2017). How the threat of losses makes people explore more than the promise of gains. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 708–720.CrossRef Lejarraga, T., & Hertwig, R. (2017). How the threat of losses makes people explore more than the promise of gains. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 708–720.CrossRef
go back to reference Lejarraga, T., Hertwig, R., & Gonzalez, C. (2012). How choice ecology influences search in decisions from experience. Cognition, 124, 334–342.CrossRefPubMed Lejarraga, T., Hertwig, R., & Gonzalez, C. (2012). How choice ecology influences search in decisions from experience. Cognition, 124, 334–342.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Lichtenstein, S. (1965). Bases for preferences among three-outcome bets. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 162–169.CrossRefPubMed Lichtenstein, S. (1965). Bases for preferences among three-outcome bets. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 162–169.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Markowitz, H. M. (1952). Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance, 7, 77–91. Markowitz, H. M. (1952). Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance, 7, 77–91.
go back to reference Meyer, W. J., & Offenbach, S. (1962). Effectiveness of reward and punishment as a function of task complexity. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 55, 532–534.CrossRef Meyer, W. J., & Offenbach, S. (1962). Effectiveness of reward and punishment as a function of task complexity. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 55, 532–534.CrossRef
go back to reference Morewedge, C. K., & Giblin, C. E. (2015). Explanations of the endowment effect: An integrative review. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 339–348.CrossRefPubMed Morewedge, C. K., & Giblin, C. E. (2015). Explanations of the endowment effect: An integrative review. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 339–348.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Mosteller, F., & Nogee, P. (1951). An experimental measurement of utility. Journal of Political Economy, 59, 371–404.CrossRef Mosteller, F., & Nogee, P. (1951). An experimental measurement of utility. Journal of Political Economy, 59, 371–404.CrossRef
go back to reference Myers, J. L., & Suydam, M. M. (1964). Gain, cost, and event probability as determiners of choice behavior. Psychological Science, 1, 39–40. Myers, J. L., & Suydam, M. M. (1964). Gain, cost, and event probability as determiners of choice behavior. Psychological Science, 1, 39–40.
go back to reference Penney, R. K., & Lupton, A. A. (1961). Children’s discrimination learning as a function of reward and punishment. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 54, 449–451.CrossRefPubMed Penney, R. K., & Lupton, A. A. (1961). Children’s discrimination learning as a function of reward and punishment. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 54, 449–451.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Pope, D. G., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2011). Is Tiger Woods loss averse? Persistent bias in the face of experience, competition, and high stakes. American Economic Review, 101, 129–157.CrossRef Pope, D. G., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2011). Is Tiger Woods loss averse? Persistent bias in the face of experience, competition, and high stakes. American Economic Review, 101, 129–157.CrossRef
go back to reference Pratt, J. W. (1964). Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica, 32, 122–136.CrossRef Pratt, J. W. (1964). Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica, 32, 122–136.CrossRef
go back to reference Pruitt, D. G. (1962). Pattern and level of risk in gambling decisions. Psychological Review, 69, 187–201.CrossRefPubMed Pruitt, D. G. (1962). Pattern and level of risk in gambling decisions. Psychological Review, 69, 187–201.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Rabin, M., & Weizsäcker, G. (2009). Narrow bracketing and dominated choices. American Economic Review, 99, 1508–1543.CrossRef Rabin, M., & Weizsäcker, G. (2009). Narrow bracketing and dominated choices. American Economic Review, 99, 1508–1543.CrossRef
go back to reference Raiffa, H. (1982). The art and science of negotiation. Cambridge: Belknap. Raiffa, H. (1982). The art and science of negotiation. Cambridge: Belknap.
go back to reference Redelmeier, D. A., & Tversky, A. (1992). On the framing of multiple prospects. Psychological Science, 3, 191–193.CrossRef Redelmeier, D. A., & Tversky, A. (1992). On the framing of multiple prospects. Psychological Science, 3, 191–193.CrossRef
go back to reference Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 269–320. Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 269–320.
go back to reference Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7–59.CrossRef Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7–59.CrossRef
go back to reference Schopenhauer, A. (1859 [1969]). The world as Will and Representation (3rd ed, vol. 1). New York: Dover. Schopenhauer, A. (1859 [1969]). The world as Will and Representation (3rd ed, vol. 1). New York: Dover.
go back to reference Sharpe, W. F. (1964). Capital asset prices: A theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. Journal of Finance, 19, 425–442. Sharpe, W. F. (1964). Capital asset prices: A theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. Journal of Finance, 19, 425–442.
go back to reference Shefrin, H., & Statman, M. (1985). The disposition to sell winners too early and ride losers too long: Theory and evidence. Journal of Finance, 40, 777–790.CrossRef Shefrin, H., & Statman, M. (1985). The disposition to sell winners too early and ride losers too long: Theory and evidence. Journal of Finance, 40, 777–790.CrossRef
go back to reference Slovic, P. (1969). Differential effects of real versus hypothetical payoffs on choices among gambles. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80, 434–437.CrossRef Slovic, P. (1969). Differential effects of real versus hypothetical payoffs on choices among gambles. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80, 434–437.CrossRef
go back to reference Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1968). The importance of variance preferences in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78, 646–654.CrossRef Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1968). The importance of variance preferences in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78, 646–654.CrossRef
go back to reference Smith, A. (1776 [1981]). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, volumes I and II. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. Smith, A. (1776 [1981]). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, volumes I and II. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
go back to reference Stevens, J. C., & Marks, L. E. (1965). Cross-modality matching of brightness and loudness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 54, 407–411.CrossRef Stevens, J. C., & Marks, L. E. (1965). Cross-modality matching of brightness and loudness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 54, 407–411.CrossRef
go back to reference Swalm, R. O. (1966). Utility theory—Insights into risk taking. Harvard Business Review, 47, 123–136. Swalm, R. O. (1966). Utility theory—Insights into risk taking. Harvard Business Review, 47, 123–136.
go back to reference Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, 39–60.CrossRef Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, 39–60.CrossRef
go back to reference Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79, 281–299.CrossRef Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79, 281–299.CrossRef
go back to reference Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 1039–1061.CrossRef Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 1039–1061.CrossRef
go back to reference Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.CrossRef Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.CrossRef
go back to reference von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press. von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
go back to reference Vul, E., Harris, C., Winkielman, P., & Pashler, H. (2009). Puzzlingly high correlations in FMRI studies of emotion, personality, and social cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 274–290.CrossRefPubMed Vul, E., Harris, C., Winkielman, P., & Pashler, H. (2009). Puzzlingly high correlations in FMRI studies of emotion, personality, and social cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 274–290.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Walasek, L., & Stewart, N. (2015). How to make loss aversion disappear and reverse: Tests of the decision by sampling origin of loss aversion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 7–11.CrossRef Walasek, L., & Stewart, N. (2015). How to make loss aversion disappear and reverse: Tests of the decision by sampling origin of loss aversion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 7–11.CrossRef
go back to reference Walster, B., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: theory and research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Walster, B., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: theory and research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
go back to reference Wang, X. T., & Johnson, J. G. (2012). A tri-reference point theory of decision making under risk. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 743–756.CrossRef Wang, X. T., & Johnson, J. G. (2012). A tri-reference point theory of decision making under risk. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 743–756.CrossRef
go back to reference Weaver, R., & Frederick, S. (2012). A reference price theory of the endowment effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 49, 696–707.CrossRef Weaver, R., & Frederick, S. (2012). A reference price theory of the endowment effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 49, 696–707.CrossRef
go back to reference Williams, J. M. (1922). Principles of social psychology, as developed in a study of economic and social conflict. New York: Alfred A. Knope.CrossRef Williams, J. M. (1922). Principles of social psychology, as developed in a study of economic and social conflict. New York: Alfred A. Knope.CrossRef
go back to reference Xue, G., Lu, Z., Levin, I. P., Weller, J. A., Li, X., & Bechara, A. (2009). Functional dissociations of risk and reward processing in the medial prefrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 19, 1019–1027.CrossRefPubMed Xue, G., Lu, Z., Levin, I. P., Weller, J. A., Li, X., & Bechara, A. (2009). Functional dissociations of risk and reward processing in the medial prefrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 19, 1019–1027.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Yechiam, E., & Ert, E. (2011). Risk attitude in decision making: In search of trait-like constructs. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 166–186.CrossRefPubMed Yechiam, E., & Ert, E. (2011). Risk attitude in decision making: In search of trait-like constructs. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 166–186.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Yechiam, E., & Hochman, G. (2013a). Losses as modulators of attention: Review and analysis of the unique effects of losses over gains. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 497–518.CrossRefPubMed Yechiam, E., & Hochman, G. (2013a). Losses as modulators of attention: Review and analysis of the unique effects of losses over gains. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 497–518.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Yechiam, E., & Hochman, G. (2013b). Loss-aversion or loss-attention: The impact of losses on cognitive performance. Cognitive Psychology, 66, 212–231.CrossRefPubMed Yechiam, E., & Hochman, G. (2013b). Loss-aversion or loss-attention: The impact of losses on cognitive performance. Cognitive Psychology, 66, 212–231.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Yechiam, E., Retzer, M., Telpaz, A., & Hochman, G. (2015). Losses as ecological guides: Minor losses lead to maximization and not to avoidance. Cognition, 139, 10–17.CrossRefPubMed Yechiam, E., Retzer, M., Telpaz, A., & Hochman, G. (2015). Losses as ecological guides: Minor losses lead to maximization and not to avoidance. Cognition, 139, 10–17.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Yeung, N., & Sanfey, A. G. (2004). Independent coding of reward magnitude and valence in the human brain. Journal of Neuroscience, 24, 6258–6264.CrossRefPubMed Yeung, N., & Sanfey, A. G. (2004). Independent coding of reward magnitude and valence in the human brain. Journal of Neuroscience, 24, 6258–6264.CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Acceptable losses: the debatable origins of loss aversion
Auteur
Eldad Yechiam
Publicatiedatum
16-04-2018
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 7/2019
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1013-8

Andere artikelen Uitgave 7/2019

Psychological Research 7/2019 Naar de uitgave