Cited by 10Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis

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

Open access
Chapman, Jonathan, Snowberg, Erik, Wang, Stephanie W, Camerer, Colin·2025·Review of Economic Studies

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/restud/rdae093

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The evidence for gender differences in loss aversion is inconsistent.

    “Consistent with this analysis, although women are generally found to be more risk-averse than men -perhaps because evolutionary pressures require the higher investing sex to be more cautious, since the costs of a poor mating decision are typically greater for women than for men (Buss, 1997) -the evidence for gender differences in loss aversion is inconsistent (Andersson et al., 2016; Chapman et al”

    From Talking the talk, not walking the walk: The coevolution of overconfidence and loss aversion (2026) · cites this paper as Chapman et al., 2024

    Section C.2 (p. 13) says the associations involving sex were not always statistically significant across the paper’s measures, supporting variability in its own findings. It does not establish that evidence across studies of gender differences in loss aversion is inconsistent. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Andersen, Ste ↵ en, Glenn W. Harrison, Morten I. Lau, and E. Elisabet Rutstr¨ om , 'Eliciting Risk and Time Preferences,' Econometrica , 2008, 76 (3), 583-618.
  2. Andersson, Ola, H˚ akan J. Holm, Jean-Robert Tyran, and Erik Wengstr¨ om , 'Risk Aversion Relates to Cognitive Ability: Preferences or Noise?,' Journal of the European Economic Association , 2016, 14 (5), 1129-1154.
  3. Andreoni, James and Charles Sprenger , 'Risk Preferences Are Not Time Preferences,' The American Economic Review , 2012, 102 (7), 3357-3376.
  4. Booij, Adam S., Bernard M.S. Van Praag, and Gijs Van De Kuilen , 'A Parametric Analysis of Prospect Theory's Functionals for the General Population,' Theory and Decision , 2010, 68 (1-2), 115-148.
  5. Choi, James J and Adriana Z Robertson , 'What Matters to Individual Investors? Evidence from the Horse's Mouth,' The Journal of Finance , 2020, 75 (4), 1965-2020.
  6. Condon, David M. and William Revelle , 'The International Cognitive Ability Resource: Development and Initial Validation of a Public-Domain Measure,' Intelligence , 2014, 43 , 52-64.
  7. Frederick, Shane , 'Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making,' Journal of Economic Perspectives , 2005, 19 (4), 25-42.
  8. Frydman, Cary, Colin Camerer, Peter Bossaerts, and Antonio Rangel , 'MAOA-L Carriers are Better at Making Optimal Financial Decisions under Risk,' Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences , 2011, 278 (1714), 2053-2059.
  9. K¨ obberling, Veronika and Peter Wakker , 'An Index of Loss Aversion,' Journal of Economic Theory , 2005, 122 , 119-131.
  10. Mechera-Ostrovsky, Tehilla, Steven Heinke, Sandra Andraszewicz, and J¨ org Rieskamp , 'Cognitive Abilities A ↵ ect Decision Errors but not Risk Preferences: A Metaanalysis,' Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 2022, pp. 1-32.
  11. Sokol-Hessner, Peter, Ming Hsu, Nina G. Curley, Mauricio R. Delgado, Colin F. Camerer, and Elizabeth A. Phelps , 'Thinking Like a Trader Selectively Reduces Individuals' Loss Aversion,' Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 2009, 106 (13), 5035-5040.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chapman, J., Snowberg, E., Wang, S. W., & Camerer, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Bologna (IT)
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Review of Economic Studies
Published
2024-09-16
Volume
92
Issue
5
Pages
2893-2922
ISSN
  • 0034-6527 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-937X
OpenAlex
W4402803983
Cited by
10
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4
FWCI
3.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Review of Economic Studies (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
NSF (SMA-1329195)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Financial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Keywords
loss aversion, loss tolerance, risk aversion, cognitive ability, gambling, stock investment, financial shocks, economic preferences, representative survey

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