0 saved
10.1K views
This mental model validates the old expression, ‘a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush’. In fact, researchers ...
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. At certe gravius. Praeteritis, inquit, gaudeo. Quae cum dixisset paulumque institisset, Quid est? Ex quo intellegitur officium medium quiddam esse, quod neque in bonis ponatur neque in contrariis. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Tamen aberramus a proposito, et, ne longius, prorsus, inquam, Piso, si ista mala sunt, placet. Octavio fuit, cum illam severitatem in eo filio adhibuit, quem in adoptionem D. Ego quoque, inquit, didicerim libentius si quid attuleris, quam te reprehenderim. Qua ex cognitione facilior facta est investigatio rerum occultissimarum. Ea possunt paria non esse.
Sed residamus, inquit, si placet. Ita ceterorum sententiis semotis relinquitur non mihi cum Torquato, sed virtuti cum voluptate certatio. An quod ita callida est, ut optime possit architectari voluptates? An eum locum libenter invisit, ubi Demosthenes et Aeschines inter se decertare soliti sunt? Quis negat? Equidem etiam Epicurum, in physicis quidem, Democriteum puto.
Cur igitur easdem res, inquam, Peripateticis dicentibus verbum nullum est, quod non intellegatur? Et quidem, inquit, vehementer errat;
-
Consider using penalties over rewards.
Your instincts m ...
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. At negat Epicurus-hoc enim vestrum lumen estquemquam, qui honeste non vivat, iucunde posse vivere. Et quod est munus, quod opus sapientiae? Etsi ea quidem, quae adhuc dixisti, quamvis ad aetatem recte isto modo dicerentur. Universa enim illorum ratione cum tota vestra confligendum puto. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Profectus in exilium Tubulus statim nec respondere ausus;
Nunc vides, quid faciat. In his igitur partibus duabus nihil erat, quod Zeno commutare gestiret. Qui ita affectus, beatum esse numquam probabis; Haec et tu ita posuisti, et verba vestra sunt. Ergo omni animali illud, quod appetiti positum est in eo, quod naturae est accommodatum. Falli igitur possumus. Quid ergo aliud intellegetur nisi uti ne quae pars naturae neglegatur? Nihilne est in his rebus, quod dignum libero aut indignum esse ducamus? Quid dubitas igitur mutare principia naturae? Huic mori optimum esse propter desperationem sapientiae, illi propter spem vivere.
Et ais, si una littera commota sit, fore tota ut labet disciplina. Inquit, dasne adolescenti veniam? Non enim iam stirpis bonum quaeret, sed animalis. Legimus tamen Diogenem, Antipatrum, Mnesarchum, Panaetium, multos alios in primisque familiarem nostrum Posidonium. Ut optime, secundum naturam affectum esse possit. An ea, quae per vinitorem antea consequebatur, per se ipsa curabit? Sed haec quidem liberius ab eo dicuntur et saepius. Tu autem negas fortem esse quemquam posse, qui dolorem malum putet. Ergo infelix una molestia, fellx rursus, cum is ipse anulus in praecordiis piscis inventus est? Illum mallem levares, quo optimum atque humanissimum virum, Cn. Habent enim et bene longam et satis litigiosam disputationem. Expectoque quid ad id, quod quaerebam, respondeas.
There are a number of studies, including the original ones by Tversky and Kahneman that provide compelling evidence behind Loss Aversion. However, there are also exceptions.
This study found that: “When the outcomes were actually experienced, losses did not have as big an emotional impact as predicted. These authors suggested that the purported asymmetrical impact of losses vs. gains was a property of affective forecasts and not of actual experiences.” In other words, the researchers seemed to argue that what initially presented as Loss Aversion had more to do with emotional responses, which did not always align with losses vs gains.
Other studies have found that Loss Aversion does not seem to arise in repetitive situations or single events with low stakes — indeed the latter phenomenon has been called ‘magnitude dependent Loss Aversion’. Another theory is that Loss Aversion is actually resultant from losses gaining your attention more effectively, so is less about the loss and more about the arousal or focus it initiates. This has been reframed as Loss Attention.
‘Stickk’ to a commitment.
No, that is not a spelling error, this example is about Stickk the web site created by a Professor of Behavioural Economics at Yale University that uses Loss Aversion to help you stick to your behavioural commitments.
Stickk is an online service where you make a public commitment to do something and, if you fail to do it, you will make a donation to a cause or group that you detest. This has proved to be more motivating than rewarding yourself with donating to a group you admire.
Save more tomorrow pension.
In the book Nudge, Sunstein and Thaler describe the story of the ‘save more tomorrow pension.’ This initiative was designed to encourage young people to invest in pensions using Loss Aversion. The pension plan cost nothing until the individual received a pay rise, and then that pay rise would automatically be directed into their pension fund.
The resultant user experience was that the individual did not see a reduction in their disposable income, there was no loss, there was only less gain. This resulted in a 200% increase in contributions amongst the target group.
Pensions part two — matching payments.
In another initiative linked to pensions, some initiatives have experimented with ‘matching contributions’, so if an individual pays x, the employer would match it. Leveraging Loss Aversion involves paying that match upfront and then taking it away if the individual does not make their payment.
‘No one ever got fired for hiring IBM’.
Have you heard of that familiar business saying? It refers to the fact that if you’re a manager and you hire the predictable ‘safe’ consultants to do work, you will not get fired, even if they don’t deliver results. However, if you go with the innovative, unknown group that might deliver more gains — the risk perception is higher and your job is more at risk as a result. It's essentially a tale in Loss Aversion.
/
Loss Aversion was first identified by psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman as part of their foundational work behind behavioural economics. The term was coined in 1979 but was more popularised in 1992 when Tversky and Kahneman started to actually measure the asymmetrical nature behind losses versus gain as part of their seminal work on Prospect Theory.
Thinking, Fast and Slow is a mental model that I often reference at ModelThinkers, and it was originally a book that you should definitely dive into for more on Loss Aversion and associated heuristics.
My Notes
Oops, That’s Members’ Only!
Fortunately, it only costs US$5/month to Join ModelThinkers and access everything so that you can rapidly discover, learn, and apply the world’s most powerful ideas.
ModelThinkers membership at a glance:
“Yeah, we hate pop ups too. But we wanted to let you know that, with ModelThinkers, we’re making it easier for you to adapt, innovate and create value. We hope you’ll join us and the growing community of ModelThinkers today.”
You Might Also Like:
- Actionable summaries of the world's most powerful ideas.
Subscribe now and download this practical guide to transform your thinking, plus recieve one short, powerful and actionable idea in your inbox each month.