Three Theories of Choice and Their Psychology of Losses

Abstract

Loss aversion has long been regarded as a fundamental psychological regularity, yet evidence has accumulated to challenge this conclusion. We review three theories of how people make decisions under risk and, as a consequence, value potential losses: expected-utility theory, prospect theory, and risk-sensitivity theory. These theories, which stem from different behavioral disciplines, differ in how they conceptualize value and thus differ in their assumptions about the degree to which value is dependent on state and context; ultimately, they differ in the extent to which they see loss aversion as a stable individual trait or as a response to particular circumstances. We highlight points of confusion that have at least partly fueled the debate on the reality of loss aversion and discuss four sources of conflicting views: confusion of loss aversion with risk aversion, conceptualization of loss aversion as a trait or as state dependent, conceptualization of loss aversion as context dependent or independent, and the attention–aversion gap—the observation that people invest more attentional resources when evaluating losses than when evaluating gains, even when their choices do not reveal loss aversion.