Free The Rational Animal: How Evolution Made Us Smarter Than We Think by Douglas T. Kenrick, Vladas Griskevicius Page B

perspective, loss aversion is mathematically irrational: $100ought to be worth $100, regardless of whether it’s coming or going.But at a psychological level, people are more moved by a loss than by a gain of an identical amount.
    An evolutionary perspective provides two insights into puzzling phenomena like loss aversion.The first is that many of our cognitive and behavioral biases have deeper evolutionary functions.Recall that the seemingly irrational bias of loss aversion is not only found in humans in all corners of the globe but also shared by other primates (like those coin-wielding, apple-purchasing capuchin monkeys).Loss aversion makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, to the extent that this bias would have helped our ancestors solve some fundamental evolutionary challenges.For instance, loss aversion might be adaptive for solving the evolutionary problem of protecting ourselves from danger.When in danger our ancestors may have benefitted especially from avoiding losses so as to retain their lives or limbs.
    An evolutionary perspective also provides a second important insight.By understanding the adaptive function of a given tendency, we are in a better position to predict when that tendency will be strong and when it won’t.This second insight could chip away at a cornerstone assumption of classic economics—that people have stable preferences.The idea is that we’re supposed to behave consistently from one situation to another.You should be loss averse at this moment, in an hour, tomorrow, and the day after.Some have even stated a precise number when it comes to the stability of loss aversion: a person should experience a loss as 2.75 times more psychologically impactful than a gain of the same magnitude.
    But the idea of subselves suggests a radically different way of thinking about how people behave across situations.Rather than being one monolithically consistent decision maker, we are—led by our subselves—predictably inconsistent.If a particular bias, like loss aversion, were adaptive for solving a particular ancestral problem, we would expect this bias to ebb and flow according to the evolutionary goal currently most important to a person.We would thus expect people to be strongly loss averse in some situations but not in others.
    Along with our colleagues Jessica Li and Steve Neuberg, we set out to test this possibility in a series of experiments.As other researchershad done in past studies demonstrating loss aversion, we asked people how they would feel if they gained $100 or lost $100.Before people answered these questions, though, they first read a short story designed to activate either the self-protection or the mate-acquisition subself.
    If you were being primed for self-protection, you would read a story imagining yourself alone in your house at night.You hear suspicious noises outside your window.At first, you dismiss them as merely rustlings of the night winds, but as things progress, it becomes clear that someone has broken into your house.You call out, and no one replies, but then you hear footsteps right outside your bedroom.You pick up the phone to make an emergency call, but the line has been cut.Finally, the intruder lets out an evil cackle, then turns the handle to your bedroom door.The scenario ends as you see his shadow appear ominously in your doorway.
    If you were instead being primed for mate acquisition, you’d have read a story about being away on vacation and meeting someone to whom you are instantly attracted.Not only is this person attractive to you, but he or she also finds you irresistible, and the two of you keep finding excuses to be around one another for hours on end.Your feelings become more and more romantic, and the scenario ends as you share a passionate kiss.
    Both men and women who read the vacation story found it romantic and even sexually arousing.People who read the other story about the creepy break-in, on the other hand, experienced not the pleasure of