IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/restud/v92y2025i5p2893-2922..html

Looming Large or Seeming Small? Attitudes Towards Losses in a Representative Sample

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan Chapman
  • Erik Snowberg
  • Stephanie W Wang
  • Colin Camerer

Abstract

We measure individual-level loss aversion using three incentivized, representative surveys of the U.S. population (combined N = 3,000). We find that around 50% of the U.S. population is loss tolerant—they are willing to accept negative-expected-value gambles that contain a loss. This is counter to expert predictions and earlier findings—which mostly come from laboratory/student samples—that 70-90% of participants are loss averse. Consistent with the different findings in our study versus the prior literature, loss aversion is more prevalent in people with high cognitive ability. Further, our measure of gain-loss attitudes exhibits similar temporal stability and better predictive power outside our survey than measures of risk aversion. Loss-tolerant individuals are more likely to report recent gambling, investing a higher percentage of their assets in stocks, and experiencing financial shocks. These results support the general hypothesis that individuals value gains and losses differently, and that gain-loss attitudes are an important economic preference. However, the tendency in a large proportion of the population to emphasize gains over losses is an overlooked behavioural phenomenon.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie W Wang & Colin Camerer, 2025. "Looming Large or Seeming Small? Attitudes Towards Losses in a Representative Sample," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 92(5), pages 2893-2922.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:restud:v:92:y:2025:i:5:p:2893-2922.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/restud/rdae093
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Kevin Bauer & Andreas Grunewald & Florian Hett & Johanna Jagow & Maximilian Speicher, 2026. "Treatment Targeting by Scaled Behavioral Measurement," CESifo Working Paper Series 12772, CESifo.
    3. Jana Freundt & Holger Herz, 2025. "A Cross-Country Study of Preferences for Choice Autonomy," CESifo Working Paper Series 12238, CESifo.
    4. Francisco Gomez-Martinez & Holger Herz, 2025. "Who Wants Power? Measuring Intrinsic Preferences for Power and Their Behavioral Signature," CESifo Working Paper Series 12241, CESifo.
    5. Sanjit Dhami & Narges Hajimoladarvish & Konstantinos Georgalos, 2023. "Precautionary Savings, Loss Aversion, and Risk: Theory and Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 10570, CESifo.
    6. Qin, Dan, 2024. "Differentiating roles of the reference alternative," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 196-221.
    7. Freundt, Jana & Herz, Holger, 2024. "From Partisanship to Preference: How Identity shapes Dependence Aversion," FSES Working Papers 536, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Freiburg/Fribourg Switzerland.
    8. Gallo, Edoardo & Barak, Darija & Langtry, Alastair, 2023. "Social distancing in networks: A web-based interactive experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    9. Duraj, Jetlir & He, Kevin, 2024. "Dynamic information preference and communication with diminishing sensitivity over news," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 19(3), July.
    10. Mitchell Hoffman & Christopher T. Stanton, 2024. "People, Practices, and Productivity: A Review of New Advances in Personnel Economics," NBER Working Papers 32849, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Kuzubaş, Tolga U. & Saltoğlu, Burak, 2024. "Survey-based measures of risk attitudes and portfolio risk: Evidence from pension participants," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D90 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:restud:v:92:y:2025:i:5:p:2893-2922.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/restud .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.