Loss aversion has long been regarded as a fundamental psychological regularity, yet evidence has accumulated to challenge this conclusion. We review three theories of how people make decisions under risk and, as a consequence, value potential losses: expected-utility theory, prospect theory, and risk-sensitivity theory. These theories, which stem from different behavioral disciplines, differ in how they conceptualize value and thus differ in their assumptions about the degree to which value is dependent on state and context; ultimately, they differ in the extent to which they see loss aversion as a stable individual trait or as a response to particular circumstances. We highlight points of confusion that have at least partly fueled the debate on the reality of loss aversion and discuss four sources of conflicting views: confusion of loss aversion with risk aversion, conceptualization of loss aversion as a trait or as state dependent, conceptualization of loss aversion as context dependent or independent, and the attention–aversion gap—the observation that people invest more attentional resources when evaluating losses than when evaluating gains, even when their choices do not reveal loss aversion.

长期以来，损失厌恶一直被认为是一种基本的心理规律，但已经积累了一些证据来挑战这一结论。我们回顾了人们如何在风险下做出决策并因此评估潜在损失的三种理论：预期效用理论、前景理论和风险敏感性理论。这些理论源于不同的行为学科，它们对价值的概念化方式不同，因此它们对价值依赖于状态和背景的程度的假设也不同；最终，他们在将损失厌恶视为稳定的个体特征或对特定情况的反应的程度上有所不同。我们强调了至少部分引发了关于损失厌恶现实的争论的混淆点，并讨论了四种相互矛盾的观点：