People occasionally face sure loss prospects. Do they seek risk in search of better outcomes or contend with the sure loss and focus on what is left to be saved? We addressed this question in three experiments akin to a negative interest rate framework. Specifically, we asked participants to allocate money (Experiments 1 and 2) or choose (Experiment 3) between two options: (i) a loss option where, for sure, they would end up with less, or (ii) a mixed gamble with a positive expected outcome, but also the possibility of an even larger loss. Risk aversion (i.e., choosing the sure loss) ranged from 80% to 36% across the three experiments, dependent on varied sizes of sure losses or expected outcomes. However, overall, the majority (> 50%) of allocations and choices were for the sure loss. Our findings indicate a tolerance for sure losses at the expense of mixed gambles yielding much better expected outcomes. We discuss the implications of this sure-loss tolerance for psychological research, its implications in terms of (cumulative) prospect theory, and what the results mean for the implementation of negative interest rates.

人们偶尔会面临一定的损失前景。他们是为了寻求更好的结果而寻求风险，还是与确定的损失作斗争并专注于剩下的事情？我们在三个类似于负利率框架的实验中解决了这个问题。具体来说，我们要求参与者分配资金（实验 1 和 2）或在两个选项之间进行选择（实验 3）：（i）损失选项，当然，他们最终会得到更少，或（ii）混合赌博一个积极的预期结果，但也有可能造成更大的损失。在三个实验中，风险规避（即选择确定的损失）的范围从 80% 到 36%，这取决于确定损失的大小或预期结果的不同。然而，总体而言，大多数（> 50%）的分配和选择是为了确定的损失。我们的研究结果表明，以牺牲混合赌博产生更好的预期结果为代价的肯定损失的容忍度。我们讨论了这种肯定损失容忍对心理学研究的影响，它在（累积）前景理论方面的影响，以及结果对负利率的实施意味着什么。