2019Alexandria (UniSG) (University of St.Gallen)Open access

Moderating Loss Aversion: Loss Aversion Has Moderators, But Reports of its Death are Greatly Exaggerated

Kellen Mrkva, Eric J. Johnson, Simon Gaechter, Andreas Herrmann

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

Loss aversion, the principle that losses impact decision making more than equivalent gains, is a fundamental idea in consumer behavior and decision making, though its existence has recently been called into question. Across five unique samples (Ntotal = 17,720), we tested predictions about what moderates loss aversion, which were derived from a preference construction account. Across studies, more domain knowledge, experience, and education were associated with lower loss aversion, though people of all knowledge, experience, and education levels were loss averse. Among car buyers, those who knew more about a particular car attribute (e.g., fuel economy) were less loss averse for that attribute but not other attributes (e.g., comfort), consistent with the idea that people with less attribute knowledge are more likely to construct preferences, thereby increasing loss aversion. Additionally, older consumers were more loss averse across different loss aversion measures and studies. We discuss implications for several accounts of loss aversion, including alternative accounts rooted in status quo bias, emotion, or feelings of ownership. In addition to discovering key loss aversion moderators, we cast doubt on recent claims that loss aversion is a fallacy or is fully explained by status quo bias, risk aversion, or the educated laboratory samples often used to study loss aversion.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Loss aversion, the principle that losses impact decision making more than equivalent gains, is a fundamental idea in consumer behavior and decision making, though its existence has recently been called into question. Across five unique samples (Ntotal = 17,720), we tested predictions about what moderates loss aversion, which were derived from a preference construction account. Across studies, more domain knowledge, experience, and education were associated with lower loss aversion, though people of all knowledge, experience, and education levels were loss averse. Among car buyers, those who knew more about a particular car attribute (e.g., fuel economy) were less loss averse for that attribute but not other attributes (e.g., comfort), consistent with the idea that people with less attribute knowledge are more likely to construct preferences, thereby increasing loss aversion. Additionally, older consumers were more loss averse across different loss aversion measures and studies. We discuss implications for several accounts of loss aversion, including alternative accounts rooted in status quo bias, emotion, or feelings of ownership. In addition to discovering key loss aversion moderators, we cast doubt on recent claims that loss aversion is a fallacy or is fully explained by status quo bias, risk aversion, or the educated laboratory samples often used to study loss aversion.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Loss aversion, the principle that losses impact decision making more than equivalent gains, is a fundamental idea in consumer behavior and decision making, though its existence has recently been called into question. Across five unique samples (Ntotal = 17,720), we tested predictions about what moderates loss aversion, which were derived from a preference construction account. Across studies, more domain knowledge, experience, and education were associated with lower loss aversion, though people of all knowledge, experience, and education levels were loss averse. Among car buyers, those who knew more about a particular car attribute (e.g., fuel economy) were less loss averse for that attribute but not other attributes (e.g., comfort), consistent with the idea that people with less attribute knowledge are more likely to construct preferences, thereby increasing loss aversion. Additionally, older consumers were more loss averse across different loss aversion measures and studies. We discuss implications for several accounts of loss aversion, including alternative accounts rooted in status quo bias, emotion, or feelings of ownership. In addition to discovering key loss aversion moderators, we cast doubt on recent claims that loss aversion is a fallacy or is fully explained by status quo bias, risk aversion, or the educated laboratory samples often used to study loss aversion.

Key concepts: Loss aversion, Status quo bias, Preference, Fallacy, Risk aversion (psychology), Economics, Prospect theory, Behavioral economics

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Moderating Loss Aversion: Loss Aversion Has Moderators, But Reports of its Death are Greatly Exaggerated — Research Paper | ScholarLens