Cited by 244Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An Experimental Test of Loss Aversion

Schmidt, Ulrich, Traub, Stefan·2002·Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1020923921649

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 17 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Schmidt, U., & Traub, S.
Affiliations
Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel (DE)
Corresponding author
Traub, Stefan
Venue
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
Published
2002-11
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
233-249
ISSN
  • 0895-5646 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0476
OpenAlex
W1575438854
Cited by
233
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 17
FWCI
3.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • European Commission
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Financial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Keywords
loss aversion, cumulative prospect theory, risk preferences, gender differences

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review