社会与工程心理学研究室知识库

损失规避是预期理论的核心部分之一，指等量的损失和获得产生的心理效用并不相同，前者大于后者。损失规避常见于经济和消费等领域，可用于解释行为决策中有悖于规范化理论的诸多现象，如禀赋效应、现状偏差、股权溢价之迷和赢者的诅咒等，然而损失规避的原因仍然是研究者关注的重点。研究一从得失过程的角度探索损失规避的原因，假设损失规避与获得损失的"程数"(route)有关，从得失程数探索损失规避的原因。实验1旨在检验接受和拒绝框架下，心理感受强度在程数和损失规避之间的中介作用；实验结果发现无论在接受还是拒绝框架下，人们均偏好单程物品，心理感受强度在程数和选择偏好之间起完全中介作用。实验2以禀赋效应实验中的损失规避系数为因变量，并试图区分程数变化和参照点变化对损失规避的影响；其结果表明在要价任务中，个体对三程物品要价较高，尽管参照点发生了变化，但并不会影响损失规避程度。实验3以一个具体的情境为例，检验不同程数的损失是否会影响损失规避和风险规避倾向，其结果证实了当损失为双程时，损失规避和风险规避倾向比损失为单程时更强。研究二探讨风险因素和损失对象的性质对损失规避的影响机制。实验4和实验5分别用问卷和行为实验的方式，以经典的禀赋效应的实验范式为基础，一方面引入了风险因素，以检验风险因素对损失规避的影响；另一方面，将传统的钱物交换情境变为物物交换情境，以检验损失对象的性质对损失规避的影响。结果发现，风险因素会增加损失规避的程度，物物交换情境与钱物交换情境中的损失规避程度没有显著差异。研究一的结果表明，损失获得的过程对损失规避程度有影响；研究二结果说明，风险会增大损失规避的程度，禀赋效应中买卖双方的差异并不是由于买方双方的认知不同导致。本文从一个新的角度--得失过程来研究损失规避的内在机制和性质，以期帮助人们认识、预测及干预由损失规避造成的经济损失和非理性决策。 

Loss aversion, which means that negative changes (losses)  loom  larger than equivalent positive changes (gains), is one of the basic elements of Prospect Theory.It was widely used in economic filed to explain abnormal phenomenon, such as endowment effect, status quo bias, equity premium puzzle, the winner's curse, and so on. However, the mechanism of loss aversion is still under hot debate.
In Study 1，we hypothesized that the loss aversion was due to the uneven routes of gains and losses, where "route" was defined as the number of transitions of the same possession. In conventional transition from not having scenarios, the gains were usually one-route with one a possession to having it, whereas the losses were typically two-route, with the another transition from having to not having it. As a result, the reason why loss aversion can be detected in these scenarios is because the number of routes for losses is greater than that for gains. Three experiments were developed to test our hypothesis. Exp.l was designed to test the mediating effect of the psychological feelings between preference and routes of gains respectively in reject frame and accept frame. The results revealed that individuals preferred one-route gains to three-route gains regardless in reject frame and in accept frame, and the psychological feelings had a complete mediating effect between preference and routes of gains. Based on the conventional endowment experiment, Exp.2 tried to pit route-based account against the reference point account. The results indicated that WTA and loss aversion coefficient for three-route goods were significant higher than that for one-route goods, and the mechanism of route provided a more promising explanation for the observed outcomes. There was a preference reversal between the Exp.l and Exp.2. Exp.3 attempted to better understand weather and how losses with different routes affect loss version and risk aversion. Its result implied that the tendencies of loss aversion and risk aversion were stronger in two-route loss condition than those in one-route condition.
Study 2 aimed to find out whether and how risk and property of loss would affect loss aversion. Based on original endowment effect which typically had buying and selling conditions, two more conditions, that is, risky buying and risking selling conditions were introduced in Study 2 to test the effect of risk on loss aversion. In order to finger out whether loss aversion was due to the different cognitive perspectives and  different attachment to money and  goods, the conventional endowment effect usually using good-money exchange scenarios, was compared with a new endowment effect which employed a good-good exchange scenario. The results of hypothetical scenarios in Exp.4 indicated that the degree of loss aversion would be higher under risky condition and there was no significant difference between the endowment effect in "good-money exchange" and that in "good-good exchange" scenarios. The similar result was duplicated in Exp.S which used naturalistic behaviors with the real monetary gains and losses.
As loss aversion was a robust phenomenon, an improved understanding of the mechanism of loss aversion from cognitive process would assist individuals to recognize, predict and intervene in the economic loss and irrational decisions caused by loss aversion.