Skip to main content
note
This page was translated from the German original, partly by machine. Some passages may read awkwardly or contain inaccuracies. When in doubt, please read the original.

23. Reference Dependence and Loss Aversion

 

Wireless Philosophy, Cognitive Biases, 5:58. Original title: CRITICAL THINKING - Cognitive Biases: Reference Dependence and Loss Aversion [HD]

Summary​

Laurie Santos (Yale University) explains why identical choices can look completely different depending on how they are described, using two biases known as reference dependence and loss aversion.

A life-or-death choice, framed two ways​

Imagine leading a medical team fighting a new flu strain that has already infected six hundred million people, all of whom will die if nothing is done. Two drugs are available:

  • Drug A saves two hundred million people for sure.
  • Drug B has a one-third chance of saving all six hundred million and a two-thirds chance of saving no one.

Most people choose drug A. In Kahneman and Tversky's original study, seventy-two percent of college students preferred drug A to drug B.

Now consider a second choice:

  • Drug C lets four hundred million people die for sure.
  • Drug D has a one-third chance that no one dies and a two-thirds chance that all six hundred million die.

Here most people choose drug D: seventy-eight percent of the same students preferred drug D to drug C.

The same drugs, different labels​

Restated in terms of lives saved and lost, drugs A and C are identical (two hundred million saved, four hundred million dead for sure), and so are drugs B and D (a one-third chance of saving all six hundred million, a two-thirds chance of saving no one). Yet people who preferred A over B also tended to prefer D over C, even though the underlying options never changed, only the wording did.

Reference dependence​

Reference dependence is the tendency to judge outcomes not in absolute terms but relative to some baseline or status quo. Finding a dollar on the ground does not register as a change to your entire net worth; you simply think, "I'm a dollar richer." In the first framing (lives saved), the baseline is zero saved, so both drugs look like gains. In the second framing (lives lost), the baseline is zero lost, so both drugs look like losses.

Loss aversion​

Loss aversion is our reluctance to accept losses, whether of money, lives or even candy. It leads people to hold onto property that is losing value rather than sell at a loss, and to avoid risky stocks that would do well overall because of a small chance of losing money. Framing drugs C and D in terms of lives lost activates this aversion, pushing people toward drug D, the option with a chance of losing no one. Drugs A and B, framed only in terms of lives saved, do not trigger the same aversion, so people default to the safer-looking option, drug A.

Key takeaway​

Santos concludes that even in a life-or-death decision, our choices are shaped less by the actual outcomes than by how those outcomes are worded: reference dependence sets the baseline we measure against, and loss aversion makes us disproportionately avoid whatever that baseline frames as a loss.