Interesting how their review omits the paper that has conducted the most direct test of loss aversion: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.107

Interesting how their review omits the paper that has conducted the most direct test of loss aversion: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.1070.0711 https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.1070.071... Also they claim the body of evidence doesn’t find support for loss aversion. But a meta analysis on the topic does in fact find support for loss aversion (albeit the magnitude is probably smaller than originally thought): https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3189088 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3189088