社会与工程心理学研究室知识库

    损失规避是指人们有规避损失的倾向，等量的损失大于获得。该现象被认为是行为经济学领域一个普遍的行为偏差，也被作为解释诸如0赋效应、股本溢价等现象的行为原理。
    算总效用(冷)、情绪(热)的角度是探索损失规避原因的两大方向:算总效用的角度认为损失获得的主观价值不对等或者损失获得主观概率不对等是导致损失规避的原因;情绪的角度包括“损失导致的情感变化一获得导致的情感变化”的相减逻辑以及“损失导致的情感变化+获得导致的情感变化”的相加逻辑。我们之前的研究从第三个方面一一损失获得程数一一的角度来解释损失规避现象:损失发生的前提是先要拥有，因此损失是双程的，而获得是单程的，出现损失规避的原因是损失程数大于获得程数。
    然而我们提出的程数说在解释某些损失规避现象时也遇到了挑战:一方面，程数说无法解释损失程数相同时损失规避的差异，比如损失规避的大小效应、来源效应;另一方面，也未说明如若程数不存在其损失规避如何，比如损失规避的拥有效应。结合损失获得程数的分析，我们推测可兑现性知觉是程数对损失规避解释机制背后更为深层次的原因。
    本论文从3个研究来探讨可兑现性知觉对损失规避的解释作用，同时比较可兑现性知觉与损失获得主观概率不对等、情感相加逻辑、情感相减逻辑对损失规避现象的解释作用大小。
    研究1用可兑现性知觉来解释以前简单程数说能够解释的现象，即损失获得程数不一致导致的损失规避的差异。通过重复以前的“交税退税”“输钱赢钱”的实验，发现两种情境中损失规避程度的确存在差异，且可兑现性知觉、主观概率不对等、情感相加逻辑在程数和损失规避之间中介作用显著。研究2分为3个子研究分别用可兑现性知觉来解释简单程数说不能够解释的大小效应、来源效应以及拥有效应。结果发现，可兑现性知觉能够解释损失规避的大小效应和拥有效应，且解释作用优于主观概率不对等、情感相减逻辑和情感相加逻辑。研究3的结果发现“诚信一谦恭”态度会调节可兑现性知觉对损失规避大小效应的解释作用，即金额大小通过可兑现性知觉影响损失规避程度，仅适用于“诚信一谦恭”态度高的人。
    本论文的3个研究表明，可兑现性知觉是能够解释损失规避现象，且其解释作用优于主观概率不对等、情感相减逻辑和情感相加逻辑。本论文结果可在理论上加深对损失规避机制的理解，在实际应用上可以通过操作损失程数以及可兑现性知觉影响人们的损失规避态度。

    Loss aversion, which indicates that negative changes (losses) have greater impact than the equivalent positive changes (gains), is one of the basic elements of Prospect Theory. Loss aversion was considered an influential and pervasive behavior bias on individual decision making and introduced as an explanatory principle of some behavior anomalies such as the endowment effect and stock premium.
    Researchers have promoted the following two general accepted interpretations of
loss aversion: the subjective utility-based asymmetry and the affect-based asymmetry between gains and losses. However, both interpretations neglected one premise of money exchange, that is, the gains were usually one-route with the transition from not having to having a possession, whereas the losses were typically two-route, with another transition from having to not having. Thus, in our previous research, loss aversion was hypothesized due to the uneven routes of gains and losses.
    However, the route-based account was challenged with situations, where the gain has one route and the loss has two routes, whereas the degrees of loss aversion are different. The present paper further explores why individuals are loss aversion by interpreting the perception of ability to realize the loss as a mediator between the routes and loss aversion while comparing the route-based account with the affect-based asymmetry (additive or subtractive logic) and subjective probability-based asymmetry accounts.
    Three studies were designed to test the mediation effect of the perception of ability to realize the loss between the routes and loss aversion.Study 1 was intended to interpret the loss aversion scenario which can be explained by the simple route-based account. Moreover, the differences of loss aversion in the tax scenario, which is "three-route gain vs. two-route loss", and money scenario, which is "one-route gain vs. two-route loss", can be mediated by the perception of ability to realize the loss. The three sub studies of Study 2 were designed to test whether or not the perception of ability to realize the loss can interpret the loss aversion phenomena,which cannot be explained by the simple route-based account. These phenomena include the magnitude effect, resource effect, and own effect. Furthermore, Study 3 explored that the individuals' honest-humility strait can moderate the mediation effect of the perception of ability to realize the loss on the magnitude effect of loss aversion.
    The present paper pit route-based account was compared with the affect-based asymmetry (additive or subtractive logic) and subjective probability-based asymmetry accounts. The results corroborated that the perception of ability to realize the loss,which was considered the mechanism of the route-based account, may provide a promising explanation for the observed loss aversion. The implications of these findings for tax policy-making and social reform were discussed.