English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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 (&gt; 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.

How risk-prone are people when facing a sure loss? Negative interest rates as a convenient conceptual framework