Untitled

Chechile, Richard A.; Butler, Susan F.

doi:10.1023/a:1007833125015

Cited by 13 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, when R was favorable (i.e., p = .90) they tended to be loss averse, overweighting losses relative to gains (i.e., λ > 1). Follow-up work refined the original methodology (Chechile & Butler, 2000, 2003; Chechile & Luce, 1999) but the take-home message is the same: the subjective representation of outcomes is context-dependent, varying as a function of the favorableness of the reference lottery. Future work should attempt to reconcile these results with Walasek and Stewart’s and the present ones.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Absolute and relative stability of loss aversion across contexts.

Spektor,

Kellen,

Rieskamp

et al. 2024

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals' decisions under risk tend to be in line with the notion that "losses loom larger than gains." This loss aversion in decision making is commonly understood as a stable individual preference that is manifested across different contexts. The presumed stability and generality, which underlies the prominence of loss aversion in the literature at large, has been recently questioned by studies reporting how loss aversion can disappear, and even reverse, as a function of the choice context. The present study investigated whether loss aversion reflects a trait-like attitude of avoiding losses or rather individuals' adaptability to different contexts. We report three experiments investigating the within-subject context sensitivity of loss aversion in a two-alternative forced-choice task. Our results show that the choice context can shift people's loss aversion, though somewhat inconsistently. Moreover, individual estimates of loss aversion are shown to have a considerable degree of stability. Altogether, these results indicate that even though the absolute value of loss aversion can be affected by external factors such as the choice context, estimates of people's loss aversion still capture the relative dispositions toward gains and losses across individuals. Public Significance StatementLoss aversion is a core feature of prospect theory, and is widely relied upon by researchers and practitioners when characterizing the causes behind real-world phenomena; for example, why people generally dislike stocks despite them having higher returns than risk-free bonds. The present work shows systematic changes in loss aversion across contexts, alongside stable individual differences. These results legitimize the comparison of people's loss aversion relative to one another, while undermining the comparability of estimates to different contexts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Absolute and relative stability of loss aversion across contexts.

Spektor,

Kellen,

Rieskamp

et al. 2024

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, when R was favorable (i.e., p = .90) they tended to be loss averse, overweighting losses relative to gains (i.e., λ > 1). Follow-up work refined the original methodology (Chechile & Butler, 2000, 2003Chechile & Luce, 1999) Solid lines depict the fit of simple linear regressions. In both panels, predicted choice proportions below 50% reflect loss aversion, those above 50% gain seeking.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Absolute and relative stability of loss aversion across contexts

Spektor¹,

Kellen²,

Rieskamp³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals’ decisions under risk tend to be in line with the notion that “losses loom larger than gains”. This loss aversion in decision making is commonly understood as a stable individual preference that is manifested across different contexts. The presumed stability and generality, which underlies the prominence of loss aversion in the literature at large, has been recently questioned by studies showing how loss aversion can disappear, and even reverse, as a function of the choice context. The present study investigated whether loss aversion reflects a trait-like attitude of avoiding losses or rather individuals’ adaptability to different contexts. We report three experiments that investigated the within-subject context sensitivity of loss aversion in a two-alternative forced-choice task. The results show beside interindiviudal differences in loss aversion, that the context affects the extent of loss aversion. This indicates that even though the absolute value of loss aversion can be affected by external factors such as the choice context, estimates of people’s loss aversion still capture the relative dispositions towards gains and losses across individuals.

show abstract