Editing Loss aversion (section)

==Loss attention as alternative==
Loss attention refers to the tendency of individuals to allocate more attention to a task or situation when it involve losses than when it does not involve losses. What distinguishes loss attention from loss aversion is that it does not imply that losses are given more subjective weight (or [[utility]]) than gains. Moreover, under loss aversion losses have a ''biasing'' effect whereas under loss attention they can have a ''debiasing'' effect. Loss attention was proposed as a distinct regularity from loss aversion by Eldad Yechiam and Guy Hochman.<ref name = YH2013a>{{cite journal|last1=Yechiam |first1=E. |last2=Hochman|first2=G. |s2cid=10521233 |year=2013 |title=Losses as modulators of attention: Review and analysis of the unique effects of losses over gains |journal=Psychological Bulletin|volume=139 |issue=2 |pages=497–518 |doi=10.1037/a0029383 |pmid=22823738 }}</ref><ref name = YH2013b>{{cite journal|last1=Yechiam |first1=E. |last2=Hochman|first2=G. |s2cid=1898874 |year=2013 |title= Loss-aversion or loss-attention: The impact of losses on cognitive performance. |journal=Cognitive Psychology|volume=66 |issue=2 |pages=212–231 |doi= 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.12.001 |pmid=23334108 }}</ref>

[[File:Loss attention model.jpg|thumb|Figure 2 shows the effect of losses on the allocation of attention according to the loss attention account.]]
Specifically, the effect of losses is assumed to be on general attention rather than plain visual or auditory attention. The loss attention account assumes that losses in a given task mainly increase the general attentional resource pool available for that task. The increase in attention is assumed to have an inverse-U shape effect on performance (following the so called [[Yerkes–Dodson law|Yerkes-Dodson law]]).<ref name = YH2013a/> The inverse U-shaped effect implies that the effect of losses on performance is most apparent in settings where task attention is low to begin with, for example in a monotonous vigilance task or when a concurrent task is more appealing. Indeed, it was found that the positive effect of losses on performance in a given task was more pronounced in a task performed concurrently with another task which was primary in its importance.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Yechiam |first1=E. |last2=Hochman|first2=G. |s2cid=76424 |year=2014 |title= Loss attention in a dual task setting. |journal=Psychological Science|volume=25 |issue=2 |pages=494–502 |doi= 10.1177/0956797613510725 |pmid=24357614 }}</ref>

Loss attention is consistent with several empirical findings in economics, finance, marketing, and decision making. Some of these effects have been previously attributed to loss aversion, but can be explained by a mere attention asymmetry between gains and losses. An example is the performance advantage attributed to [[golf]] rounds where a player is under par (or in a disadvantage) compared to other rounds where a player is at an advantage.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Pope |first1=D.G |last2=Schweitzer|first2=M.E |year=2011 |title= Is Tiger Woods Loss Averse? Persistent Bias in the Face of Experience, Competition, and High Stakes |journal=American Economic Review|volume=101 |pages=129–157|doi= 10.1257/aer.101.1.129|citeseerx=10.1.1.183.2072 |s2cid=10293253 }}</ref> Clearly, the difference could be attributed to increased attention in the former type of rounds. 2010s studies suggested that loss aversion mostly occur for very large losses,<ref name = YH2013a/> although the exact boundaries of the effect are unclear. On the other hand, loss attention was found even for small payoffs, such as $1. This suggests that loss attention may be more robust than loss aversion. Still, one might argue that loss aversion is more parsimonious than loss attention.<ref name = YH2013b/>

===Additional phenomena explained by loss attention===
* Increased expected value maximization with losses – It was found that individuals are more likely to select choice options with higher [[expected value]] (namely, mean outcome) in tasks where outcomes are framed as losses than when they are framed as gains. Yechiam and Hochman found that this effect occurred even when the alternative producing higher expected value was the one that included minor losses. Namely, a highly advantageous alternative producing minor losses was more attractive compared when it did not produce losses. Therefore, paradoxically, in their study minor losses led to more selection from the alternative generating them (refuting an explanation of this phenomenon based on loss aversion).<ref name = YH2013b/> 
* Loss arousal – Individuals were found to display greater [[Autonomic Nervous System]] activation following losses than following equivalent gains.<ref name="Hochman Yechiam 2011">{{cite journal |last1=Hochman |first1=G. |last2=Yechiam |first2=E. |year=2011 |title=Loss aversion in the eye and in the heart: The Autonomic Nervous System's responses to losses |journal=Journal of Behavioral Decision Making |volume=24 |issue=2 |pages=140–156 |doi=10.1002/bdm.692|doi-access=free }}</ref> For example, pupil diameter and heart rate were found to increase following both gains and losses, but the size of the increase was higher following losses. Importantly, this was found even for small losses and gains where individuals do not show loss aversion. Similarly, a positive effect of losses compared to equivalent gains was found on activation of midfrontal cortical networks 200 to 400 milliseconds after observing the outcome.<ref name = GW2002>{{cite journal |last1=Gehring|first1=W.J. |last2=Willoughby|first2=A.R |year=2002 |title=The medial frontal cortex and the rapid processing of monetary gains and losses|journal=Science|volume=295 |issue=2 |pages=2279–2282|doi=10.1002/bdm.692|pmid=11910116 |bibcode=2002Sci...295.2279G |doi-access=free }}</ref> This effect as well was found in the absence of loss aversion.<ref name = GW2002/>
* Increased hot stove effect for losses – The hot stove effect is the finding that individuals avoid a risky alternative when the available information is limited to the obtained payoffs. A relevant example (proposed by [[Mark Twain]]) is of a cat which jumped of a hot stove and will never do it again, even when the stove is cold and potentially contains food. In a finding that is consistent with the notion that losses increase attention, when a given option produces losses, this increases the hot stove effect.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Yechiam |first1=E. |last2=Hochman|first2=G. |last3=Ashby|first3=NJS. |s2cid=38961229 |year=2019|title= Are we attracted by losses? Boundary conditions for the approach and avoidance effects of losses  |journal= Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition |volume=45 |issue=4 |pages=591–605 |doi= 10.1037/xlm0000607 |pmid=29999403 }}</ref>
* Out of pocket phenomenon – In financial decision making, it has been shown that people are more motivated when their incentives are to avoid losing personal resources, as opposed to gaining equivalent resources. Traditionally, this strong behavioral tendency was explained by loss aversion; however, it could also be explained simply as increased attention.<ref name = YH2013a/><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Hochman|first1=G. |last2=Ayal|first2=S.|last3=Ariely|first3=D.|year=2014 |title=Keeping your gains close but your money closer: The effect of prepayment on choice and behavior.|journal=Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization|volume=107|pages=582–594 |doi=10.1016/j.jebo.2014.01.014}}</ref>
* Allure of minor disadvantages – In marketing studies, it has been demonstrated that products whose minor negative features are highlighted (in addition to positive features) are perceived as more attractive.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Ein-Gar|first1=D. |last2=Shiv|first2=B.|last3=Tormala|first3=Z. |s2cid=144281463 |year=2012 |title= When blemishing leads to blossoming: The positive effect of negative information. |journal=Journal of Consumer Research|volume=38|issue=5 |pages=846–859 |doi=10.1086/660807 }}</ref> Similarly, messages discussing both the advantages and disadvantages of a product were found to be more convincing than one-sided messages.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Mamins|first1=M.A |last2=Brand|first2=M.J|last3=Hoeke|first3=S.A.|last4=Moe|first4=J.C |s2cid=18785479 |year=1989|title= Two-sided versus one-sided celebrity endorsements: The impact on advertising effectiveness and credibility. |journal=Journal of Advertising|volume=18|issue=2 |pages=4–10|doi=10.1080/00913367.1989.10673146}}</ref> Loss attention explains this as due to attentional competition between options, and increased attention following the highlighting of small negatives, which can increase the attractiveness of a product or a candidate either due to exposure or learning.<ref name = YH2013a/>