Editing Loss aversion (section)

==Criticisms==
Multiple studies have questioned the existence of loss aversion. In several studies examining the effect of losses in decision-making,  no loss aversion was found under risk and uncertainty.<ref>Erev, Ert & Yechiam, 2008; Ert & Erev, 2008; Harinck, Van Dijk, Van Beest, & Mersmann, 2007; Kermer, Driver-Linn, Wilson, & Gilbert, 2006; Nicolau, 2012; Yechiam & Telpaz, in press</ref> There are several explanations for these findings: one is that loss aversion does not exist in small payoff magnitudes (called magnitude dependent loss aversion by Mukherjee et al.(2017);<ref>Mukherjee, S., Sahay, A., Pammi, V.S.C., & Srinivasan, N. (2017). Is loss-aversion magnitude-dependent? Measuring prospective affective judgments regarding gains and losses. [http://journal.sjdm.org/16/16611/jdm16611.pdf Judgment and Decision Making], 12(1), 81–89.</ref> which seems to hold true for time as well.<ref>Mukherjee, S., & Srinivasan, N (2021). Hedonic impacts of gains versus losses of time: are we loss averse? [https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2021.1907741 Cognition and Emotion]</ref> The other is that the generality of the loss aversion pattern is lower than previously thought. [[David Gal]] (2006) argued that many of the phenomena commonly attributed to loss aversion, including the status quo bias, the endowment effect, and the preference for safe over risky options, are more parsimoniously explained by [[psychological inertia]] than by a loss/gain asymmetry. Gal and Rucker (2018) made similar arguments.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Gal|first1=David|last2=Rucker|first2=Derek D.|s2cid=148956334|date=2018-04-20|title=The Loss of Loss Aversion: Will It Loom Larger Than Its Gain?|journal=Journal of Consumer Psychology|language=en|volume=28|issue=3|pages=497–516|doi=10.1002/jcpy.1047|issn=1057-7408|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Gal|first1=David|last2=Rucker|first2=Derek D.|s2cid=149965278|date=2018-04-16|title=Loss Aversion, Intellectual Inertia, and a Call for a More Contrarian Science: A Reply to Simonson & Kivetz and Higgins & Liberman|journal=Journal of Consumer Psychology|language=en|volume=28|issue=3|pages=533–539|doi=10.1002/jcpy.1044|issn=1057-7408}}</ref> Mkrva, Johnson, Gächter, and Herrmann (2019) cast doubt on these critiques, replicating loss aversion in five unique samples while also showing how the magnitude of loss aversion varies in theoretically predictable ways.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Mrkva|first1=Kellen|last2=Johnson|first2=Eric J.|last3=Gächter|first3=Simon|last4=Herrmann|first4=Andreas|s2cid=212850733|title=Moderating Loss Aversion: Loss Aversion Has Moderators, But Reports of its Death are Greatly Exaggerated|journal=Journal of Consumer Psychology|language=en|doi=10.1002/jcpy.1156|issn=1532-7663|year=2020|volume=30|issue=3|pages=407–428|url=https://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/260559/2/jcpy.1156.pdf}}</ref> 

Loss aversion may be more salient when people compete. Gill and Prowse (2012) provide experimental evidence that people are loss averse around reference points given by their expectations in a competitive environment with real effort.<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Gill, David  |author2=Victoria Prowse  |s2cid=7842439 |name-list-style=amp |title=A structural analysis of disappoifntment aversion in a real effort competition |journal=American Economic Review |volume=102 |number=1 |pages=469–503 |year=2012 |ssrn=1578847 |doi=10.1257/aer.102.1.469|citeseerx=10.1.1.650.2595  }}</ref> Losses may also have an effect on attention but not on the weighting of outcomes; losses lead to more autonomic arousal than gains even in the absence of loss aversion.<ref name="Hochman Yechiam 2011"/> This latter effect is sometimes known as Loss Attention.<ref>Yechiam & Hochman, 2013</ref>