| Title |
Acceptable losses: the debatable origins of loss aversion
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Psychological Research, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00426-018-1013-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eldad Yechiam |
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 310 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 56 | 18% |
| United Kingdom | 26 | 8% |
| Australia | 11 | 4% |
| Canada | 10 | 3% |
| Germany | 10 | 3% |
| India | 9 | 3% |
| France | 7 | 2% |
| Sweden | 6 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 6 | 2% |
| Other | 41 | 13% |
| Unknown | 128 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 243 | 78% |
| Scientists | 50 | 16% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 9 | 3% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 172 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 172 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 39 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 26 | 15% |
| Researcher | 25 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 9% |
| Professor | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 22 | 13% |
| Unknown | 38 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 49 | 28% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 20 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 8% |
| Decision Sciences | 11 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 30 | 17% |
| Unknown | 39 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 236. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 March 2023.
All research outputs
#163,372
of 25,791,495 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#10
of 1,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,610
of 325,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#1
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,791,495 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,039 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,281 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.