Editing Loss aversion (section)

===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/>