Predicting the intensity of losses vs. non-gains and non-losses vs. gains in judging fairness and value: A test of the loss aversion explanation

102 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Framing Controversial Actions: Regulatory Focus, Source Credibility, and Stock Market Reaction to Poison Pill Adoption (2014, background): “Liberman et al. (2005) then go on to test the prediction of prospect theory for this situation, but find no support for it; instead, aligned with regulatory focus theory, they find that gains were perceived as more intensely positive than nonlosses.”
A self-regulatory framework for message framing☆ (2013, background): “For example, in their meta-analytic reviewO'Keefe and Jensen (2007) found an overall positive “gain frame” effect for health-affirming behaviors, but this effectwas driven by a significant effect for one class of behaviors: dental hygiene.”
Self-other decision making and loss aversion (2012, background): “In line with previous research (Huber et al., 1997; Idson et al., 2000; Kumar & Lim, 2008; Liberman et al., 2005; Malkoc & Zauberman, 2006; Ritov & Baron, 1992), each variable was significantly correlated with the amount of loss aversion (greater loss aversion is indicated by lower values):…”