Is Avoiding Losses Actually a More Significant Motivating Force Than Realizing Gains?

For decades, psychologists and behavioral economists have proclaimed the importance of loss aversion, one of the most prominent cognitive biases identified by researchers. However, a recent thought-provoking article in Scientific American by David Gal challenges the conventional wisdom. Gal writes about the research he has conducted with David Rucker and published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology. 

Source:  Blue Diamond Gallery

Gal argues that, "Loss aversion is essentially a fallacy." The statement surprised and intrigued me. Could it really be true that such a prominent theory was incorrect, and that a great deal of evidence existed to contradict it? Gal explains in more detail:

That is, there is no general cognitive bias that leads people to avoid losses more vigorously than to pursue gains. Contrary to claims based on loss aversion, price increases (ie, losses for consumers) do not impact consumer behavior more than price decreases (ie, gains for consumers). Messages that frame an appeal in terms of a loss (eg, “you will lose out by not buying our product”) are no more persuasive than messages that frame an appeal in terms of a gain (eg, “you will gain by buying our product”).

People do not rate the pain of losing $10 to be more intense than the pleasure of gaining $10. People do not report their favorite sports team losing a game will be more impactful than their favorite sports team winning a game. And people are not particularly likely to sell a stock they believe has even odds of going up or down in price (in fact, in one study I performed, over 80 percent of participants said they would hold on to it).

To be sure it is true that big financial losses can be more impactful than big financial gains, but this is not a cognitive bias that requires a loss aversion explanation, but perfectly rational behavior. If losing $10,000 means giving up the roof over your head whereas gaining $10,000 means going on an extra vacation, it is perfectly rational to be more concerned with the loss than the gain. Likewise, there are other situations where losses are more consequential than gains, but these require specific explanations not blanket statements about a loss aversion bias.

Perhaps most interestingly, Gal goes on to offer an explanation for why loss aversion has become such a prominent principle generally accepted by many scholars as truth.  He explains that another key cognitive bias, confirmation bias, has been a major factor. Scholars have tended to look for evidence that confirms and bolsters the theory of loss aversion, while dismissing or discounting contradictory or discordant findings. Other social forces too have helped to maintain and preserve the conventional wisdom. Gal concludes, "Wrong ideas can persist for a long time despite contrary evidence, and therefore, that there is a need to critically assess accepted beliefs and to be wary of institutional consensus in science and otherwise."

Freemium Business Models: Taking Advantage of Cognitive Bias

Psychologists have described a number of cognitive biases that affect our decision-making processes. These biases are systematic errors or traps that we encounter as we make choices.  Put another way, these biases are ways in which actual human behavior deviates from the assumptions economists make in their models of "rational" choice. 

In this terrific blog post titled, "The Psychology Behind Freemium," Alex Mayyasi describes how one such bias may explain the success of many freemium business models.   For those not familiar with the term, a freemium business is one in which customers can use a service for free at first, but must pay for upgraded versions or additional features.  

Mayyasi attributes the success of freemium business models in part to something called the "endowment effect."  If humans were perfectly "rational" in their choices, they would be willing to pay the same amount for a product or service they did not have as they would demand to be paid for giving up a good that they already possessed.  However, many individuals actually demand more in compensation for giving up a good they already have than they are willing to pay for that same good if they do not already possess it.   Mayyasi cites a study by Ziv Carmon and Dan Ariely in which they examined how people behave with regard to NCAA Final Four men's basketball game tickets.  They asked people what the highest price was that they were willing to pay for such tickets.   They also asked them the price at which they would be willing to sell their tickets if they already owned them.  The selling price was more than 10 times the buying price! 

Psychologists attribute the endowment effect, in part, to a cognitive bias called loss aversion.  As Mayyasi says, people "generally react more strongly to losses than gains."  Selling something you already have is a "loss" in many people's minds.  Loss aversion may kick in when you experience a freemium product or service and face the decision about whether to pay a fee to continue enjoying the service. 

I would argue that you can think about this effect in terms of sunk costs too.    Sunk costs are not just investments of dollars.  Sunk costs can be investments of time and energy as well.  If you have put a great deal of time and effort into a video game, you don't want to "waste" those resources that you have invested.  Therefore, when faced with the question of whether to now pay for additional features of the game to continue playing, you are prone to invest some money.  You put more resources into the endeavor because you don't want to "waste" the investment you have already made.