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

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    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.