Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Acceptable losses: the debatable origins of loss aversion

  • Review
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  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).

References

  • Abdellaoui, M., Bleichrodt, H., & Paraschiv, C. (2007). Loss aversion under prospect theory: A parameter-free measurement. Management Science, 53, 1659–1674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anbarci, N., Arin, K. P., Okten, C., & Zenker, C. (2017). Is Roger Federer more loss averse than Serena Williams? Applied Economics, 49, 3546–3559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni, J., Harbaugh, W., & Vesterlund, L. (2003). The carrot or the stick: Rewards, punishments, and cooperation. American Economic Review, 93, 893–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, J. D., & Reinmuth, J. E. (1976). Comparing imputed and actual utility functions in a competitive bidding setting. Decision Sciences, 7, 801–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benartzi, S., & Thaler, R. H. (1995). Myopic loss-aversion and the equity premium puzzle. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 73–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bernoulli, D. (1738 [1954]). Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Econometrica, 22, 22–36.

  • Butler (1822). The Poems of Samuel Butler, vol 2. Chiswick: C. Whittingham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. E. (1989). An experimental test of several generalized utility theories. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2, 61–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. F. (2005). Three cheers—Psychological, theoretical, empirical—For loss aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 129–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cason, H. (1930). Pleasant and unpleasant feelings. Psychological Review, 37, 227–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, C. H. (1964). A Theory of Data. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Dickinson, D. L. (2001). The carrot vs. the stick in work team motivation. Experimental Economics, 4, 107–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edgeworth, F. Y. (1877). New and old methods of ethics: Or “Physical Ethics” and“Methods of Ethics”. Oxford: James Parker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 380–417.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C., & Kochenberger, G. A. (1979). Two piece Von Neumann-Morgenstern utility functions. Decision Sciences, 10, 503–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M., & Savage, L. J. (1948). The utility analysis of choices involving risk. Journal of political Economy, 56, 279–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gal, D., & Rucker, D. (2018). The loss of loss aversion: Will it loom larger than its gain? Journal of Consumer Psychology. (in press). https://ssrn.com/abstract=3049660.

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ganzach, Y., & Karsahi, N. (1995). Message framing and buyer behaviour: A field experiment. Journal of Business Research, 32, 11–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehring, W. J., & Willoughby, A. R. (2002). The medial frontal cortex and the rapid processing of monetary gains and losses. Science, 295, 2279–2282.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grayson, C. J. (1960). Decisions under uncertainty: drilling decisions by oil and gas operators. Cambridge: Graduate School of Business, Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. B. (1963). Risk attitudes and chemical investment decisions. Chemical Engineering Progress, 59, 35–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, S. J., & Shiller, R. J. (1981). The determinants of the variability of stock market prices. American Economic Review, 71, 222–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halter, A. N., & Dean, G. W. (1971). Decisions under uncertainty. Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hossain, T., & List, J. A. (2012). The behavioralist visits the factory: Increasing productivity using simple framing manipulations. Management Science, 58, 2151–2167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kacelnik, A., & Bateson, M. (1997). Risk-sensitivity: crossroads for theories of decision making. Trends in Cognitive Science, 1, 304–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, L. (1963). The effect of differential gain and loss on sequential two-choice behavior. Doctoral Dissertations 1896-February 2014. 1642. Retrieved June 2017 from http://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/1642.

  • Katz, L. (1964). Effects of differential monetary gain and loss on sequential two-choice behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 245–249.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lejarraga, T., Hertwig, R., & Gonzalez, C. (2012). How choice ecology influences search in decisions from experience. Cognition, 124, 334–342.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, S. (1965). Bases for preferences among three-outcome bets. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 162–169.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz, H. M. (1952). Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance, 7, 77–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morewedge, C. K., & Giblin, C. E. (2015). Explanations of the endowment effect: An integrative review. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 339–348.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mosteller, F., & Nogee, P. (1951). An experimental measurement of utility. Journal of Political Economy, 59, 371–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, J. L., & Suydam, M. M. (1964). Gain, cost, and event probability as determiners of choice behavior. Psychological Science, 1, 39–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, J. W. (1964). Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica, 32, 122–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt, D. G. (1962). Pattern and level of risk in gambling decisions. Psychological Review, 69, 187–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rabin, M., & Weizsäcker, G. (2009). Narrow bracketing and dominated choices. American Economic Review, 99, 1508–1543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa, H. (1982). The art and science of negotiation. Cambridge: Belknap.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redelmeier, D. A., & Tversky, A. (1992). On the framing of multiple prospects. Psychological Science, 3, 191–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 269–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schopenhauer, A. (1859 [1969]). The world as Will and Representation (3rd ed, vol. 1). New York: Dover.

  • Sharpe, W. F. (1964). Capital asset prices: A theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. Journal of Finance, 19, 425–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1969). Differential effects of real versus hypothetical payoffs on choices among gambles. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80, 434–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1968). The importance of variance preferences in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78, 646–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (1776 [1981]). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, volumes I and II. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.

  • Stevens, J. C., & Marks, L. E. (1965). Cross-modality matching of brightness and loudness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 54, 407–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swalm, R. O. (1966). Utility theory—Insights into risk taking. Harvard Business Review, 47, 123–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, 39–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79, 281–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 1039–1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walster, B., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: theory and research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, R., & Frederick, S. (2012). A reference price theory of the endowment effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 49, 696–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. M. (1922). Principles of social psychology, as developed in a study of economic and social conflict. New York: Alfred A. Knope.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yechiam, E., & Ert, E. (2011). Risk attitude in decision making: In search of trait-like constructs. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 166–186.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yechiam, E., & Hochman, G. (2013b). Loss-aversion or loss-attention: The impact of losses on cognitive performance. Cognitive Psychology, 66, 212–231.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yeung, N., & Sanfey, A. G. (2004). Independent coding of reward magnitude and valence in the human brain. Journal of Neuroscience, 24, 6258–6264.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Nathaniel J.S. Ashby, Elias Khalil, and Liat Levontin for their helpful comments.

Funding

This work was supported by the I-CORE program of the Planning and Budgeting Committee and the Israel Science Foundation (1821/12).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Max Wertheimer Minerva Center for Cognitive Studies, Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, 3200003, Haifa, Israel

    Eldad Yechiam

Authors
  1. Eldad Yechiam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eldad Yechiam.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author (EY) declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yechiam, E. Acceptable losses: the debatable origins of loss aversion. Psychological Research 83, 1327–1339 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1013-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1013-8