Loss Aversion in Marketing: 

Loss aversion, a cornerstone of behavioral economics, profoundly impacts consumer decision-making in marketing. It describes the tendency for individuals to feel the pain of a loss more strongly than the pleasure of an equivalent gain (Peng, 2025), (Frank, NaN), (Mrkva, 2019). This psychological principle, far from being a niche concept, permeates various aspects of consumer behavior, offering marketers powerful insights into shaping persuasive campaigns and optimizing strategies. This explanation will delve into the intricacies of loss aversion, exploring its neural underpinnings, its manifestation in diverse marketing contexts, and its implications for crafting effective marketing strategies.

Understanding the Neural Basis of Loss Aversion:

The phenomenon isn’t simply a matter of subjective preference; it has a demonstrable biological basis. Neuroscientific research, such as that conducted by Michael Frank, Adriana Galvan, Marisa Geohegan, Eric Johnson, and Matthew Lieberman (Frank, NaN), reveals that distinct neural networks respond differently to potential gains and losses. Their fMRI study showed that a broad neural network, including midbrain dopaminergic regions and their limbic and cortical targets, exhibited increasing activity as potential gains increased. Conversely, an overlapping set of regions showed decreasing activity as potential losses increased (Frank, NaN). This asymmetry in neural response underscores the heightened sensitivity to potential losses, providing a neurological foundation for the behavioral phenomenon of loss aversion. Further research by C. Eliasmith, A. Litt, and Paul Thagard (Eliasmith, NaN) delves into the interplay between cognitive and affective processes, suggesting a modulation of reward valuation by emotional arousal, influenced by stimulus saliency (Eliasmith, NaN). Their model proposes a dopamine-serotonin opponency in reward prediction error, influencing both cognitive planning and emotional state (Eliasmith, NaN). This neural model offers a biologically plausible explanation for the disproportionate weight given to losses in decision-making. The work of Benedetto De Martino, Colin F. Camerer, and Ralph Adolphs (Martino, 2010) further supports this neurobiological connection by demonstrating that individuals with amygdala damage exhibit reduced loss aversion (Martino, 2010), highlighting the amygdala’s crucial role in processing and responding to potential losses. The study by Zoe Guttman, D. Ghahremani, J. Pochon, A. Dean, and E. London (Guttman, 2021) adds another layer to this understanding by linking age-related changes in the posterior cingulate cortex thickness to variations in loss aversion (Guttman, 2021). This highlights the complex interplay between biological factors, cognitive processes, and the manifestation of loss aversion.

Loss Aversion in Marketing Contexts:

The implications of loss aversion are far-reaching in marketing. Marketers can leverage this bias to enhance consumer engagement and drive sales (Peng, 2025), (Zheng, 2024). Kedi Peng’s research (Peng, 2025) highlights the effectiveness of framing choices to emphasize potential losses rather than gains (Peng, 2025). For instance, promotional sales often emphasize the limited-time nature of discounts, creating a sense of urgency and fear of missing out (FOMO), thereby triggering a stronger response than simply highlighting the potential gains (Peng, 2025), (Zheng, 2024). This FOMO taps directly into loss aversion, motivating consumers to make impulsive purchases to avoid perceived losses (Peng, 2025), (Zheng, 2024), (Hwang, 2024). Luojie Zheng’s work (Zheng, 2024) further underscores the power of loss aversion in attracting and retaining customers (Zheng, 2024), demonstrating its effectiveness in both short-term sales boosts and long-term customer relationship building (Zheng, 2024). The application extends beyond promotional sales. Money-back guarantees and free trials (Soosalu, NaN) capitalize on loss aversion by allowing consumers to experience a product without the immediate commitment of a purchase, reducing the perceived risk of loss (Soosalu, NaN). The feeling of ownership, even partial ownership, can significantly increase perceived value and reduce the likelihood of return (Soosalu, NaN), as consumers become emotionally attached to the product and are averse to losing it (Soosalu, NaN). This principle is also evident in online auctions, where the psychological ownership developed during the bidding process drives prices higher than they might otherwise be (Soosalu, NaN).

Moderators of Loss Aversion:

While loss aversion is a robust phenomenon, its impact is not uniform across all consumers. Several factors can moderate its influence (Mrkva, 2019). Kellen Mrkva, Eric J. Johnson, S. Gaechter, and A. Herrmann (Mrkva, 2019) identified domain knowledge, experience, and education as key moderators (Mrkva, 2019). Consumers with more domain knowledge tend to exhibit lower levels of loss aversion (Mrkva, 2019), suggesting that informed consumers are less susceptible to manipulative marketing tactics that emphasize potential losses. Age also plays a role, with older consumers generally displaying greater loss aversion (Mrkva, 2019), influencing their responses to marketing messages and promotions (Mrkva, 2019). This suggests the need for tailored marketing strategies targeted at different demographic segments, considering their varying levels of susceptibility to loss aversion. The research by Michael S. Haigh and John A. List (Haigh, 2005) further supports this idea by comparing the loss aversion exhibited by professional traders and students (Haigh, 2005). Their findings revealed differences in loss aversion between these groups, highlighting the influence of experience and expertise on this psychological bias (Haigh, 2005). The impact of market share, as highlighted by M. Kallio and M. Halme (Kallio, NaN), also adds another layer of complexity (Kallio, NaN). Their research redefines loss aversion in terms of demand response rather than value response, introducing the concept of a reference price and highlighting market share as a significant factor influencing price behavior (Kallio, NaN). This emphasizes the importance of considering market dynamics and consumer expectations when analyzing loss aversion’s impact.

Loss Aversion and Pricing Strategies:

Loss aversion significantly influences consumer price sensitivity (Genesove, 2001), (Biondi, 2020), (Koh, 2025). David Genesove and Christopher Mayer (Genesove, 2001) demonstrate this in the housing market, where sellers experiencing nominal losses set asking prices significantly higher than expected market values (Genesove, 2001), reflecting their reluctance to realize losses (Genesove, 2001). This reluctance is even more pronounced among owner-occupants compared to investors (Genesove, 2001), highlighting the psychological influence on pricing decisions (Genesove, 2001). Beatrice Biondi and L. Cornelsen (Biondi, 2020) explore the reference price effect in online and traditional supermarkets (Biondi, 2020), finding that loss aversion plays a role in both settings but is less pronounced in online choices (Biondi, 2020). This suggests that the context of the purchase significantly influences the impact of loss aversion on consumer behavior. Daniel Koh and Zulklifi Jalil (Koh, 2025) introduce the Loss Aversion Distribution (LAD) model (Koh, 2025), a novel approach to understanding time-sensitive decision-making behaviors influenced by loss aversion (Koh, 2025). This model provides actionable insights for optimizing pricing strategies by capturing how perceived value diminishes over time, particularly relevant for perishable goods and time-limited offers (Koh, 2025). The work by Botond Kőszegi and Matthew Rabin (Kszegi, 2006) develops a model of reference-dependent preferences, incorporating loss aversion and highlighting how consumer expectations about outcomes impact their willingness to pay (Kszegi, 2006). Their research emphasizes the influence of market price distribution and anticipated behavior on consumer decisions, adding complexity to the understanding of pricing strategies (Kszegi, 2006). The study by Yawen Zhang, B. Li, and Ruidong Zhao (Zhang, 2021) further expands on this by examining the impact of loss aversion on pricing strategies in advance selling, showing that higher loss aversion leads to lower prices (Zhang, 2021).

Loss Aversion and Marketing Messages:

The way information is framed significantly affects consumer responses (Camerer, 2005), (Orivri, 2024), (Chuah, 2011), (Lin, 2023). Colin F. Camerer (Camerer, 2005) emphasizes the importance of prospect theory, where individuals evaluate outcomes relative to a reference point, making losses more impactful than equivalent gains (Camerer, 2005). This understanding is crucial for crafting effective marketing messages (Camerer, 2005). The study by Glory E. Orivri, Bachir Kassas, John Lai, Lisa House, and Rodolfo M. Nayga (Orivri, 2024) explores the impact of gain and loss framing on consumer preferences for gene editing (Orivri, 2024), finding that both frames can reduce aversion but that gain framing is more effective (Orivri, 2024). SweeHoon Chuah and James F. Devlin (Chuah, 2011) highlight the importance of understanding loss aversion in improving marketing strategies for financial services (Chuah, 2011). Jingwen Lin’s research (Lin, 2023) emphasizes the influence of various cognitive biases, including loss aversion, on consumer decision-making, illustrating real-world cases where loss aversion has affected consumer choices (Lin, 2023). This research underscores the significance of addressing cognitive biases like loss aversion to improve decision-making in marketing contexts (Lin, 2023). The research by Mohammed Abdellaoui, Han Bleichrodt, and Corina Paraschiv (Abdellaoui, 2007) further emphasizes the importance of accurately measuring utility for both gains and losses to create effective marketing tactics (Abdellaoui, 2007). Their parameter-free measurement of loss aversion within prospect theory provides a more nuanced understanding of consumer preferences (Abdellaoui, 2007). The study by Peter Sokol-Hessner, Ming Hsu, Nina G. Curley, Mauricio R. Delgado, Colin F. Camerer, and Elizabeth A. Phelps (SokolHessner, 2009) suggests that perspective-taking strategies can reduce loss aversion, implying that reframing losses can influence consumer choices (SokolHessner, 2009). This highlights the potential for marketers to use cognitive strategies to mitigate the negative impact of loss aversion. The research by Ola Andersson, Hkan J. Holm, Jean-Robert Tyran, and Erik Wärneryd (Andersson, 2014) further supports this by showing that deciding for others reduces loss aversion (Andersson, 2014), suggesting that framing decisions in a social context might also alleviate the impact of this bias (Andersson, 2014).

Loss Aversion across Generations and Demographics:

Loss aversion is not experienced uniformly across all demographics. Thomas Edward Hwang’s research (Hwang, 2024) explores generational differences in loss aversion and responses to limited-time discounts (Hwang, 2024). Their findings highlight varying levels of impulse buying and calculated decision-making across Baby Boomers, Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z, influenced by urgency marketing (Hwang, 2024). This underscores the importance of tailoring marketing strategies to resonate with generational preferences and sensitivities to loss (Hwang, 2024). Aaryan Kayal’s study (Kayal, 2024) specifically addresses cognitive biases, including loss aversion, in the financial decisions of teenagers (Kayal, 2024), highlighting the importance of understanding loss aversion when designing marketing strategies targeted at younger demographics (Kayal, 2024). Simon Gaechter, Eric J. Johnson, and Andreas Herrmann (Gaechter, 2007) found a significant correlation between loss aversion and demographic factors such as age, income, and wealth (Gaechter, 2007), indicating that marketing strategies should be tailored to specific consumer segments based on these factors (Gaechter, 2007). Sudha V Ingalagi and Mamata (Ingalagi, 2024) also investigated the influence of gender and risk perception on loss aversion in investment decisions, suggesting that similar principles could be applied to consumer behavior in marketing contexts (Ingalagi, 2024). Their research highlights the importance of considering these variables when designing marketing campaigns (Ingalagi, 2024). The research by J. Nicolau, Hakseung Shin, Bora Kim, and J. F. O’Connell (Nicolau, 2022) demonstrates how loss aversion impacts passenger behavior in airline pricing strategies, with business passengers showing a greater reaction to loss aversion than economy passengers (Nicolau, 2022). This suggests that different customer segments exhibit varying degrees of sensitivity to losses, impacting the effectiveness of marketing strategies (Nicolau, 2022).

Loss Aversion in Specific Marketing Scenarios:

The principle of loss aversion finds application in various marketing scenarios beyond simple pricing and promotional strategies. The research by Wentao Zhan, Wenting Pan, Yi Zhao, Shengyu Zhang, Yimeng Wang, and Minghui Jiang (Zhan, 2023) explores how loss aversion affects customer decisions regarding return-freight insurance (RI) in e-retailing (Zhan, 2023). Their findings indicate that higher loss sensitivity leads to reduced willingness to purchase RI, impacting e-retailer profitability (Zhan, 2023). This highlights the importance of considering loss aversion when designing return policies and insurance options (Zhan, 2023). Qin Zhou, Kum Fai Yuen, and Yu-ling Ye (Zhou, 2021) examine the impact of loss aversion and brand loyalty on competitive trade-in strategies (Zhou, 2021), showing that firms recognizing consumer loss aversion can increase profits compared to those that don’t (Zhou, 2021). However, they also find that both loss aversion and brand loyalty negatively affect consumer surplus (Zhou, 2021), suggesting a complex interplay between business strategies and consumer welfare (Zhou, 2021). The research by Junjie Lin (Lin, 2024) explores the impact of loss aversion in real estate and energy conservation decisions (Lin, 2024), demonstrating how the fear of loss influences consumer choices in these areas (Lin, 2024). This suggests that similar principles might apply to other marketing fields where consumers make significant financial commitments (Lin, 2024). The study by Jiaying Xu, Qingfeng Meng, Yuqing Chen, and Zhao Jia (Xu, 2023) examines loss aversion’s impact on pricing decisions in product recycling within green supply chain operations (Xu, 2023), demonstrating that understanding consumer loss aversion can improve economic efficiency and resource conservation in marketing efforts (Xu, 2023). This highlights the applicability of loss aversion principles to sustainable marketing practices (Xu, 2023). The study by Yashi Lin, Jiaxuan Wang, Zihao Luo, Shaojun Li, Yidan Zhang, and B. Wünsche (Lin, 2023) investigates how loss aversion can be used to increase physical activity in augmented reality (AR) exergames (Lin, 2023), suggesting that this principle can be applied beyond traditional marketing contexts to encourage healthy behaviors (Lin, 2023). The research by Roland G. Fryer, Steven D. Levitt, John A. List, and Sally Sadoff (Fryer, 2012) demonstrates the effectiveness of pre-paid incentives leveraging loss aversion to improve teacher performance (Fryer, 2012), which highlights the potential of this principle in motivational contexts beyond consumer marketing (Fryer, 2012). Zhou Yong-wu and L. Ji-cai (Yong-wu, NaN) analyze the joint decision-making process of loss-averse retailers regarding advertising and order quantities (Yong-wu, NaN), showing that loss aversion influences both advertising spending and inventory management (Yong-wu, NaN). This suggests that loss aversion impacts various aspects of retail marketing strategies (Yong-wu, NaN). Lei Jiang’s research (Jiang, 2018), (Jiang, 2018), (Jiang, NaN) consistently explores the impact of loss aversion on retailers’ decision-making processes, analyzing advertising strategies in both cooperative and non-cooperative scenarios (Jiang, 2018), (Jiang, 2018), (Jiang, NaN) and highlighting how loss aversion influences order quantities and advertising expenditures (Jiang, 2018), (Jiang, NaN). This work consistently demonstrates the pervasive influence of loss aversion on various aspects of retail marketing and supply chain management. The research by Shaofu Du, Huifang Jiao, Rongji Huang, and Jiaang Zhu (Du, 2014) examines supplier decision-making behaviors during emergencies, considering consumer risk perception and loss aversion (Du, 2014). Although not directly focused on marketing, it highlights the broader impact of loss aversion on decision-making under conditions of uncertainty (Du, 2014). C. Lan and Jianfeng Zhu (Lan, 2021) explore the impact of loss aversion on consumer decisions in new product presale strategies in the e-commerce supply chain (Lan, 2021), demonstrating that understanding loss aversion can inform optimal pricing strategies (Lan, 2021). This research highlights the importance of considering consumer psychology when designing presale campaigns (Lan, 2021). The research by Shuang Zhang and Yueping Du (Zhang, 2025) applies evolutionary game theory to analyze dual-channel pricing decisions, incorporating consumer loss aversion (Zhang, 2025). Their findings suggest that a decrease in consumer loss aversion leads to more consistent purchasing behavior, impacting manufacturers’ strategies (Zhang, 2025). This study demonstrates the importance of considering behavioral economics in marketing tactics (Zhang, 2025). The study by R. Richardson (Richardson, NaN) examines the moderating role of social networks on loss aversion, highlighting how socially embedded exchanges amplify the effects of loss aversion on consumer-brand relationships (Richardson, NaN). This research underscores the importance of understanding social influence when designing marketing strategies that consider loss aversion (Richardson, NaN). Finally, Hanshu Zhuang’s work (Zhuang, 2023) explores the relationship between customer loyalty and status quo bias, which is closely tied to loss aversion, highlighting the importance of considering loss aversion when designing loyalty programs and marketing strategies that aim to retain customers (Zhuang, 2023).

Addressing Loss Aversion in Marketing Strategies:

Understanding loss aversion allows marketers to design more effective campaigns. By framing messages to emphasize potential losses, marketers can tap into consumers’ heightened sensitivity to negative outcomes, driving stronger responses than simply highlighting potential gains (Peng, 2025), (Zheng, 2024). This approach can be applied to various marketing elements, including pricing, promotions, and product messaging. However, it’s crucial to employ ethical and responsible marketing practices, avoiding manipulative tactics that exploit consumer vulnerabilities (Zamfir, 2024), (Dam, NaN). The research by Y. K. Dam (Dam, NaN) suggests that negative labelling (highlighting potential losses from unsustainable consumption) can be more effective than positive labelling (highlighting gains from sustainable consumption) in promoting sustainable consumer behavior (Dam, NaN). This research emphasizes the importance of understanding the psychological mechanisms behind consumer choices when designing marketing strategies that promote socially responsible behaviors (Dam, NaN). The paper by Christopher McCusker and Peter J. Carnevale (McCusker, 1995) examines how framing resource dilemmas influences decision-making and cooperation, highlighting the impact of loss aversion on cooperative behavior (McCusker, 1995). This research suggests that understanding loss aversion can improve marketing approaches and decision-making in various fields (McCusker, 1995). The study by Midi Xie (Xie, 2023) investigates the influence of status quo bias and loss aversion on consumer choices, using the Coca-Cola’s new Coke launch as a case study (Xie, 2023). This research emphasizes the importance of considering consumer reluctance to change when introducing new products (Xie, 2023). The research by Peter Sokol-Hessner, Colin F. Camerer, and Elizabeth A. Phelps (SokolHessner, 2012) indicates that emotion regulation strategies can reduce loss aversion (SokolHessner, 2012), suggesting that marketers can potentially influence consumers’ emotional responses to mitigate the impact of loss aversion (SokolHessner, 2012). The research by K. Selim, A. Okasha, and Heba M. Ezzat (Selim, 2015) explores loss aversion in the context of asset pricing and financial markets, finding that loss aversion can improve market quality and stability (Selim, 2015). While not directly related to marketing, this research suggests that understanding loss aversion can lead to more stable and efficient market outcomes (Selim, 2015). The study by Michael Neel (Neel, 2025) examines the impact of country-level loss aversion on investor responses to earnings news, finding that investors in more loss-averse countries are more sensitive to bad news (Neel, 2025). Although not directly marketing-related, this research illustrates the cross-cultural variations in loss aversion and its implications for investment decisions (Neel, 2025). The work by Artina Kamberi and Shenaj Haxhimustafa (Kamberi, 2024) investigates the impact of loss aversion on investment decision-making, considering demographic factors and financial literacy (Kamberi, 2024). While not directly marketing-focused, this research provides insights into how loss aversion influences risk preferences and investment choices (Kamberi, 2024). Finally, the research by Glenn Dutcher, Ellen Green, and B. Kaplan (Dutcher, 2020) explores how framing (gain vs. loss) in messages influences decision-making regarding organ donations (Dutcher, 2020), demonstrating the effectiveness of loss-framed messages in increasing commitment to donation (Dutcher, 2020). This highlights the power of framing in influencing decisions, a principle applicable to various marketing contexts (Dutcher, 2020). The research by Qi Wang, L. Wang, Xiaohang Zhang, Yunxia Mao, and Peng Wang (Wang, 2017) examines how the presentation of online reviews can evoke loss aversion, affecting consumer purchase intention and delay (Wang, 2017). This work highlights the importance of considering the psychological impact of information presentation when designing online marketing strategies (Wang, 2017). The research by Mauricio R. Delgado, A. Schotter, Erkut Y. Ozbay, and E. Phelps (Delgado, 2008) investigates why people overbid in auctions, linking it to the neural circuitry of reward and loss contemplation (Delgado, 2008). This research demonstrates how framing options to emphasize potential loss can heighten bidding behavior, illustrating principles of loss aversion in a tangible context (Delgado, 2008). Finally, the research by Zhilin Yang and Robin T. Peterson (Yang, 2004) examines the moderating effects of switching costs on customer satisfaction and perceived value, which can indirectly relate to loss aversion as switching costs can represent a perceived loss for customers (Yang, 2004).

Loss aversion is a powerful and pervasive psychological force that significantly influences consumer behavior in marketing. Understanding its neural underpinnings and its manifestation across various contexts, demographics, and marketing strategies is essential for creating effective and ethical campaigns. By acknowledging and strategically addressing loss aversion, marketers can design more persuasive messages, optimize pricing strategies, and foster stronger consumer engagement. However, it is equally crucial to employ these insights responsibly, avoiding manipulative tactics that exploit consumer vulnerabilities. A thorough understanding of loss aversion empowers marketers to create campaigns that resonate deeply with consumers while upholding ethical standards. Further research into the nuances of loss aversion, its interaction with other cognitive biases, and its cross-cultural variations will continue to refine our understanding and its application in marketing.

References

Abdellaoui, M., Bleichrodt, H., & Paraschiv, C. (2007). Loss aversion under prospect theory: a parameter-free measurement. Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1070.0711

Andersson, O., Holm, H. J., Tyran, J., & Wengstrm, E. (2014). Deciding for others reduces loss aversion. Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2085

Biondi, B. & Cornelsen, L. (2020). Reference price effect on consumer choicein online and traditional supermarkets: anapplication of discrete choice model onhome scan data. None. https://doi.org/10.6092/UNIBO/AMSACTA/6424

Camerer, C. F. (2005). Three cheerspsychological, theoretical, empiricalfor loss aversion. SAGE Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.42.2.129.62286

Chuah, S. & Devlin, J. F. (2011). Behavioural economics and financial services marketing: a review. Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/02652321111165257

Dam, Y. K. (NaN). Sustainable consumption and marketing. None. https://doi.org/10.18174/370623

Delgado, M. R., Schotter, A., Ozbay, E. Y., & Phelps, E. (2008). Understanding overbidding: using the neural circuitry of reward to design economic auctions. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1158860

Du, S., Jiao, H., Huang, R., & Zhu, J. (2014). Emergency-dependent supply decisions with risk perception and price control. None. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/965395

Dutcher, G., Green, E., & Kaplan, B. (2020). Using behavioral economics to increase transplantation through commitments to donate.. Transplantation. https://doi.org/10.1097/TP.0000000000003182

Eliasmith, C., Litt, A., & Thagard, P. (NaN). Why losses loom larger than gains: modeling neural mechanisms of cognitive-affective interaction. None. https://doi.org/None

Frank, M., Galvan, A., Geohegan, M., Johnson, E., & Lieberman, M. (NaN). Supplementary materials for : losses loom larger than gains in the brain : neural loss aversion predicts behavioral loss aversion. None. https://doi.org/None

Fryer, R. G., Levitt, S. D., List, J. A., & Sadoff, S. (2012). Enhancing the efficacy of teacher incentives through loss aversion: a field experiment. None. https://doi.org/10.3386/w18237

Gaechter, S., Johnson, E. J., & Herrmann, A. (2007). Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices. RELX Group (Netherlands). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1010597

Genesove, D. & Mayer, C. (2001). Loss aversion and seller behavior: evidence from the housing market. None. https://doi.org/10.3386/w8143

Guttman, Z., Ghahremani, D., Pochon, J., Dean, A., & London, E. (2021). Age influences loss aversion through effects on posterior cingulate cortical thickness. Frontiers in Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2021.673106

Haigh, M. S. & List, J. A. (2005). Do professional traders exhibit myopic loss aversion? an experimental analysis. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00737.x

Hwang, T. E. (2024). Generational variations in loss aversion: analyzing purchase decisions under limited-time discounts. Journal of World Economy. https://doi.org/10.56397/jwe.2024.12.05

Ingalagi, S. V. & Mamata, (2024). Implications of loss aversion and investment decisions. None. https://doi.org/10.61808/jsrt90

Jiang, L. (2018). Cooperative advertising and order strategy between the risk neutral manufacturer and the loss averse retailer. International Conferences on Computers in Management and Business. https://doi.org/10.1145/3232174.3232188

Jiang, L. (2018). Game in two kinds of situations based on the loss averse retailer. None. https://doi.org/10.1145/3271972.3271999

Jiang, L. (NaN). Supply chain cooperative advertising and ordering model for the loss averse retailer. None. https://doi.org/10.17706/IJAPM.2018.8.3.31-44

Kallio, M. & Halme, M. (NaN). Redefining loss averse and gain seeking. None. https://doi.org/None

Kamberi, A. & Haxhimustafa, S. (2024). Loss aversion: the unseen force shaping investment decisions. None. https://doi.org/10.62792/ut.evision.v11.i21-22.p2705

Kayal, A. (2024). Cognitive biases in financial decisions made by teenagers. INTERANTIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT. https://doi.org/10.55041/ijsrem37474

Koh, D. & Jalil, Z. (2025). An application framework for the loss aversion distribution: insights for marketing, education, and digital adoption. International journal of business management. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v20n2p1

Kszegi, B. & Rabin, M. (2006). A model of reference-dependent preferences*. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.121.4.1133

Lan, C. & Zhu, J. (2021). New product presale strategies considering consumers loss aversion in the e-commerce supply chain. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8194879

Lin, J. (2023). The impact of anchoring effects, loss aversion, and belief perseverance on consumer decision-making. Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences. https://doi.org/10.54254/2754-1169/62/20231321

Lin, J. (2024). Exploring the impact and decisions of loss aversion psychology in the real estate field and energy conservation. Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences. https://doi.org/10.54254/2754-1169/2024.18448

Lin, Y., Wang, J., Luo, Z., Li, S., Zhang, Y., & Wnsche, B. (2023). Dragon hunter: loss aversion for increasing physical activity in ar exergames. Australasian Computer Science Week. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579375.3579403

Martino, B. D., Camerer, C. F., & Adolphs, R. (2010). Amygdala damage eliminates monetary loss aversion. National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0910230107

McCusker, C. & Carnevale, P. J. (1995). Framing in resource dilemmas: loss aversion and the moderating effects of sanctions. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1995.1015

Mrkva, K., Johnson, E. J., Gaechter, S., & Herrmann, A. (2019). Moderating loss aversion: loss aversion has moderators, but reports of its death are greatly exaggerated. None. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1156

Neel, M. (2025). Country-level loss aversion and the market response to earnings news. Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4768248

Nicolau, J., Shin, H., Kim, B., & O”Connell, J. F. (2022). The impact of loss aversion and diminishing sensitivity on airline revenue: price sensitivity in cabin classes. Journal of Travel Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875221093014

Orivri, G. E., Kassas, B., Lai, J., House, L., & Nayga, R. M. (2024). The impacts of message framing on consumer preferences for gene editing. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics-Revue Canadienne D”Agroeconomie. https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12380

Peng, K. (2025). The impact of loss aversion on decision-making in marketing and financial markets. Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences. https://doi.org/10.54254/2754-1169/2024.19247

Richardson, R. (NaN). The moderating role of social networks in loss aversion: testing how consumption in network subcultures can strengthen consumer-brand relationships. None. https://doi.org/None

Selim, K., Okasha, A., & Ezzat, H. M. (2015). Loss aversion, adaptive beliefs, and asset pricing dynamics. Advances in Decision Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/971269

SokolHessner, P., Camerer, C. F., & Phelps, E. A. (2012). Emotion regulation reduces loss aversion and decreases amygdala responses to losses. University of Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss002

SokolHessner, P., Hsu, M., Curley, N. G., Delgado, M. R., Camerer, C. F., & Phelps, E. A. (2009). Thinking like a trader selectively reduces individuals” loss aversion. National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0806761106

Soosalu, G. (NaN). O-prime, a new semantic tool. None. https://doi.org/None

Wang, Q., Wang, L., Zhang, X., Mao, Y., & Wang, P. (2017). The impact research of online reviews” sentiment polarity presentation on consumer purchase decision. Information Technology and People. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-06-2014-0116

Xie, M. (2023). The influence of status quo bias on the behavior of micro subject. Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences. https://doi.org/10.54254/2754-1169/10/20230434

Xu, J., Meng, Q., Chen, Y., & Jia, Z. (2023). Dual-channel pricing decisions for product recycling in green supply chain operations: considering the impact of consumer loss aversion. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20031792

Yang, Z. & Peterson, R. T. (2004). Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: the role of switching costs. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20030

Yong-wu, Z. & Ji-cai, L. (NaN). Joint decision-making of order quantities and advertising expenditure for loss-averse retailers. None. https://doi.org/None

Zamfir, M. D. (2024). Scarcity effect and consumer decision biases: how urgency influences the perceived value of products. Journal of World Economy. https://doi.org/10.56397/jwe.2024.12.04

Zhan, W., Pan, W., Zhao, Y., Zhang, S., Wang, Y., & Jiang, M. (2023). The optimal decision of e-retailer based on return-freight insurance – considering the loss aversion of customers. Kybernetes. https://doi.org/10.1108/k-07-2023-1187

Zhang, S. & Du, Y. (2025). Application of evolutionary game to analyze dual-channel decisions: taking consumer loss aversion into consideration. Mathematics. https://doi.org/10.3390/math13020234

Zhang, Y., Li, B., & Zhao, R. (2021). Resale or agency: pricing strategy for advance selling in a supply chain considering consumers loss aversion. None. https://doi.org/10.1093/IMAMAN/DPAB012

Zheng, L. (2024). The power of loss aversion: enhancing customer engagement and retention in business. Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences. https://doi.org/10.54254/2754-1169/2024.18268

Zhou, Q., Yuen, K. F., & Ye, Y. (2021). The effect of brand loyalty and loss aversion on competitive trade-in strategies. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2021.1933423

Zhuang, H. (2023). Customer loyalty and status quo bias. Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences. https://doi.org/10.54254/2754-1169/12/20230655