by John Y. Campbell and Tarun Ramadorai · 25 Jul 2025
): 262–292, and Daniel Kahneman, Jack L. Knetsch, and Richard H. Thaler, “Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 5, no. 1 (1991): 193–206. For evidence that loss aversion is not confined to human beings, see M. Keith Chen, Venkat Lakshminarayanan, and Laurie R. Santos, “How
…
Finance, 216 longevity risk, 169 long-term inflation-indexed bonds, 166 long-term insurance, 253–254. See also life insurance long-term interest rates, 289n37 losses: aversion to, 130; deferring pain of, 45 lottery: initial public offering and, 137; prize-linked savings account and, 223, 240, 241; state, 292n9; value of ticket
by Michael Bhaskar · 2 Nov 2021
older we get, the less risk the economy can bear. In general, one would expect an older society to be less dynamic, more risk- and loss-averse. Others see the role of competition, market barriers or access to capital as having the same effect. The capital required to unseat incumbents, whose market
by Kevin Dutton · 3 Feb 2011 · 338pp · 100,477 words
stock-market decline – despite the fact that the latter, over time, have shown far better rates of return. Such conundrums as this – known as myopic loss aversion – have provided the impetus for a new, and somewhat timely, field of study: neuroeconomics. Neuroeconomics focuses on the mental processes that drive financial decision-making
by Aaron Dignan · 1 Feb 2019 · 309pp · 81,975 words
/papers/w10486.pdf. We prefer to stick with what we’ve got: Daniel Kahneman, Jack L. Knetsch, and Richard H. Thaler, “Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 5, no. 1 (1991), doi:10.1257/jep.5.1.193. “put a man on the moon
by Andrea L. Glenn and Adrian Raine · 7 Mar 2014
with conduct problems and callous-unemotional traits.” Brain 132:843–52. De Martino, B., C. F. Camerer, and R. Adolphs. 2010. “Amygdala damage eliminates monetary loss aversion.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 107 (8):3788–92. de Oliveira-Souza, R., R. D. Hare, I. E. Bramati, G. J. Garrido
by Daniel Kahneman · 24 Oct 2011 · 654pp · 191,864 words
sensitive to changes than to states (prospect theory)* overweights low probabilities* shows diminishing sensitivity to quantity (psychophysics)* responds more strongly to losses than to gains (loss aversion)* frames decision problems narrowly, in isolation from one another* * * * Part 2 Heuristics and Biases The Law of Small Numbers A study of the incidence
…
room. Similarly, the subjective difference between $900 and $1,000 is much smaller than the difference between $100 and $200. The third principle is loss aversion. When directly compared or weighted against each other, losses loom larger than gains. This asymmetry between the power of positive and negative expectations or experiences
…
slope of the function changes abruptly at the reference point: the response to losses is stronger than the response to corresponding gains. This is loss aversion. Figure 10 Loss Aversion Many of the options we face in life are “mixed”: there is a risk of loss and an opportunity for gain, and we must
…
rise, but not dramatically. All bets are off, of course, if the possible loss is potentially ruinous, or if your lifestyle is threatened. The loss aversion coefficient is very large in such cases and may even be infinite—there are risks that you will not accept, regardless of how many millions
…
I have made two claims, which some readers may view as contradictory: In mixed gambles, where both a gain and a loss are possible, loss aversion causes extremely risk-averse choices. In bad choices, where a sure loss is compared to a larger loss that is merely probable, diminishing sensitivity causes
…
prospect theory. Figure 10 shows an abrupt change in the slope of the value function where gains turn into losses, because there is considerable loss aversion even when the amount at risk is minuscule relative to your wealth. Is it plausible that attitudes to states of wealth could explain the extreme
…
theory failed to attract scholarly notice for more than 250 years. In 2000, the behavioral economist Matthew Rabin finally proved mathematically that attempts to explain loss aversion by the utility of wealth are absurd and doomed to fail, and his proof attracted attention. Rabin’s theorem shows that anyone who rejects
…
criticized the rational model and expected utility theory. It is time for some balance. Most graduate students in economics have heard about prospect theory and loss aversion, but you are unlikely to find these terms in the index of an introductory text in economics. I am sometimes pained by this omission,
…
was accepted by many scholars not because it is “true” but because the concepts that it added to utility theory, notably the reference point and loss aversion, were worth the trouble; they yielded new predictions that turned out to be true. We were lucky. Speaking of Prospect Theory “He suffers from
…
reference point is the existing contract and that the negotiations will focus on mutual demands for concessions relative to that reference point. The role of loss aversion in bargaining is also well understood: making concessions hurts. You have much personal experience of the role of reference point. If you changed jobs
…
were coded as pluses or minuses relative to where you were. You may also have noticed that disadvantages loomed larger than advantages in this evaluation—loss aversion was at work. It is difficult to accept changes for the worse. For example, the minimal wage that unemployed workers would accept for new
…
contrast, prospect theory asserts that both twins will definitely prefer to remain as they are. This preference for the status quo is a consequence of loss aversion. Let us focus on Albert. He was initially in position 1 on the graph, and from that reference point he found these two alternatives
…
to buy. These cases of routine trading are not essentially different from the exchange of a $5 bill for five singles. There is no loss aversion on either side of routine commercial exchanges. What distinguishes these market transactions from Professor R’s reluctance to sell his wine, or the reluctance of
…
a subject about which our grandmothers knew a great deal. In fact, however, we know more than our grandmothers did and can now embed loss aversion in the context of a broader two-systems model of the mind, and specifically a biological and psychological view in which negativity and escape dominate
…
positivity and approach. We can also trace the consequences of loss aversion in surprisingly diverse observations: only out-of-pocket losses are compensated when goods are lost in transport; attempts at large-scale reforms very often
…
a cherry will do nothing at all for a bowl of cockroaches. As he points out, the negative trumps the positive in many ways, and loss aversion is one of many manifestations of a broad negativity dominance. Other scholars, in a paper titled “Bad Is Stronger Than Good,” summarized the evidence
…
of course, and you will soon be shivering behind the rock again, driven by your renewed suffering to seek better shelter. Goals are Reference Points Loss aversion refers to the relative strength of two motives: we are driven more strongly to avoid losses than to achieve gains. A reference point is sometimes
…
theoretical concept as an aid to thinking. Who would have thought it worthwhile to spend months analyzing putts for par and birdie? The idea of loss aversion, which surprises no one except perhaps some economists, generated a precise and nonintuitive hypothesis and led researchers to a finding that surprised everyone—including
…
reference points, and a proposed change in any aspect of the agreement is inevitably viewed as a concession that one side makes to the other. Loss aversion creates an asymmetry that makes agreements difficult to reach. The concessions you make to me are my gains, but they are your losses; they
…
, when the existing workforce is reduced by attrition rather than by dismissals, or when cuts in salaries and benefits apply only to future workers. Loss aversion is a powerful conservative force that favors minimal changes from the status quo in the lives of both institutions and individuals. This conservatism helps keep
…
us stable in our neighborhood, our marriage, and our job; it is the gravitational force that holds our life together near the reference point. Loss Aversion in the Law During the year that we spent working together in Vancouver, Richard Thaler, Jack Knetsch, and I were drawn into a study of
…
designed to reward generosity as reliably as they punish meanness. Here again, we find a marked asymmetry between losses and gains. The influence of loss aversion and entitlements extends far beyond the realm of financial transactions. Jurists were quick to recognize their impact on the law and in the administration of
…
Sam never wavers in his aversion to losses. However, the aggregation of favorable gambles rapidly reduces the probability of losing, and the impact of loss aversion on his preferences diminishes accordingly. Now I have a sermon ready for Sam if he rejects the offer of a single highly favorable gamble played
…
themselves from the pain of losses by broad framing. As was mentioned earlier, we now know that experimental subjects could be almost cured of their loss aversion (in a particular context) by inducing them to “think like a trader,” just as experienced baseball card traders are not as susceptible to the
…
used in lie detection. As expected, broad framing blunted the emotional reaction to losses and increased the willingness to take risks. The combination of loss aversion and narrow framing is a costly curse. Individual investors can avoid that curse, achieving the emotional benefits of broad framing while also saving time and
…
avoidance of exposure to short-term outcomes improves the quality of both decisions and outcomes. The typical short-term reaction to bad news is increased loss aversion. Investors who get aggregated feedback receive such news much less often and are likely to be less risk averse and to end up richer.
…
. An organization that could eliminate both excessive optimism and excessive loss aversion should do so. The combination of the outside view with a risk policy should be the goal. Richard Thaler tells of a discussion about decision
…
which separate attributes are combined to form overall measures of advantage and of disadvantage, but it imposes on these measures assumptions of concavity and of loss aversion. Our analysis of mental accounting owes a large debt to the stimulating work of Richard Thaler (1980, 1985), who showed the relevance of this
…
to the former. Evidently, the same difference in pay or in working conditions looms larger as a disadvantage than as an advantage. In general, loss aversion favors stability over change. Imagine two hedonically identical twins who find two alternative environments equally attractive. Imagine further that by force of circumstance the twins
…
laureate receives an individual certificate with a personalized drawing, which is presumably chosen by the committee. My illustration was a stylized rendition of figure 10. “loss aversion ratio”: The loss aversion ratio is often found to be in the range of 1. 5 and 2.5: Nathan Novemsky and Daniel Kahneman, “The Boundaries of
…
an estimate of 2.3, “in striking agreement with estimates obtained in the very different methodology of laboratory experiments of individual decision-making”: Moshe Levy, “Loss Aversion and the Price of Risk,” Quantitative Finance 10 (2010): 1009–22. effect of price increases: Miles O. Bidwel, Bruce X. Wang, and J. Douglas
…
of Local Telephone Calls,” Journal of Regulatory Economics 8 (1995): 285–98. Bruce G. S. Hardie, Eric J. Johnson, and Peter S. Fader, “Modeling Loss Aversion and Reference Dependence Effects on Brand Choice,” Marketing Science 12 (1993): 378–94. illustrate the power of these concepts: Colin Camerer, “Three Cheers—Psychological, Theoretical
…
, Empirical—for Loss Aversion,” Journal of Marketing Research 42 (2005): 129–33. Colin F. Camerer, “Prospect Theory in the Wild: Evidence from the Field,” in Choices, Values, and
…
Frames, ed. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2000), 288–300. condo apartments in Boston: David Genesove and Christopher Mayer, “Loss Aversion and Seller Behavior: Evidence from the Housing Market,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 116 (2001): 1233–60. effect of trading experience: John A. List, “Does Market
…
when you buy one good that you will not be unable to afford another good. Novemsky and Kahneman, “The Boundaries of Loss Aversion.” Ian Bateman et al., “Testing Competing Models of Loss Aversion: An Adversarial Collaboration,” Journal of Public Economics 89 (2005): 1561–80. 28: Bad Events heartbeat accelerated: Paul J. Whalen et
…
Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2009), 278–84, cited by Eyal Zamir, “Law and Psychology: The Crucial Role of Reference Points and Loss Aversion,” working paper, Hebrew University, 2011. merchants, employers, and landlords: Daniel Kahneman, Jack L. Knetsch, and Richard H. Thaler, “Fairness as a Constraint on Profit
…
of the gamble and you will find AD and BC. the equivalent of “locking in”: Thomas Langer and Martin Weber, “Myopic Prospect Theory vs. Myopic Loss Aversion: How General Is the Phenomenon?” Journal of E {>Joenon?&conomic Behavior & Organization 56 (2005): 25–38. 32: Keeping Score drive into a blizzard: The
…
frowning; availability heuristic and; representativeness and gains Galinsky, Adam Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index Galton, Francis gambles; bundling of; certainty effect and; emotional framing in; loss aversion in; lottery; mixed; and outcomes produced by action vs. inaction; possibility effect and; psychological value of; regret and; simple; St. Petersburg paradox and; vs.
…
Layard, Richard leaderless group challenge leadership and business practices; at Google LeBoeuf, Robyn legal cases: civil, damages in; DNA evidence in; fourfold pattern and; frivolous; loss aversion in; malpractice; outcome bias in leisure time less-is-more pattern Lewis, Michael libertarian policies Lichtenstein, Sarah life: evaluation of; stories in; satisfaction in; thinking
…
in Albert and Ben problem; blind spots of; cumulative; decision weights and probabilities in; fourfold pattern in; frames and; graph of losses and gains in; loss aversion in; reference points in “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk” (Kahneman and Tversky) prototypes psychiatric patients psychological immune system psychology, teaching psychopathic charm
…
decision weights; denominator neglect and; by experts; and format of risk expression; fourfold pattern in; for health risks; hindsight bias and; laws and regulations governing; loss aversion in; narrow framing in; optimistic bias and; policies for; possibility effect and; precautionary principle and; probability neglect and; public policies and; small risks and; of
by Andrew W. Lo · 3 Apr 2017 · 733pp · 179,391 words
set out to test these systematic biases in an experimental setting. From a financial perspective, one of the most important of these biases is called loss aversion. When we make choices involving risky outcomes, most of us place greater weight on losses than on gains. We’re much more averse to losing
…
in a risky situation than simple mathematics would predict. Loss aversion is so embedded in our behavior that it can be difficult for us to see. Kahneman and Tversky brought it to light by ruthlessly stripping
…
worth much less than the possibility of many thorns in the bush if that possibility also includes a chance of avoiding thorns altogether. Why should loss aversion be interesting to anyone other than academics? It’s because this behavior is especially counterproductive in a financial context. To see why, take the combination
…
Banks, 2002, $691 million loss), Yasuo Hamanaka (Sumitomo, 1996, $2.6 billion loss), Nick Leeson (Barings, 1995, £827 million loss), and many others before them. Loss aversion applies not only to traders and investors, but to any individual facing a choice between a sure loss and a riskier alternative that may bring
…
the regulator’s competence and bringing down political wrath on the regulator’s agency. Here we have all the ingredients for a classic case of loss aversion: a sure loss to the regulator if she takes action, but a riskier alternative with the possibility of redemption, if only she waits. Waiting to
…
why regulatory forbearance might occur, such as global competition among regulatory agencies and the political economy of regulation.15 But a more mundane explanation is loss aversion: a sure loss to the regulator if she calculates that a bank’s assets have declined, and a riskier but less psychologically painful alternative if
…
crisis,16 we shouldn’t dismiss the possibility that they didn’t react sooner simply because they were too human. PROBABILITY MATCHING AND MARCH MADNESS Loss aversion is only one of many behavioral biases discovered by psychologists like Tversky and Kahneman. Just as the human eye is susceptible to optical illusions, the
…
, or there must be something else driving us to behave in these seemingly irrational ways. Fortunately for our self-esteem, there is. Probability matching and loss aversion are not irrational in the sense of being totally random—they’re far too systematic for that. Let me propose an outline of an explanation
…
. We may know what we do, but we need to understand how and why as well. IT TAKES A THEORY TO BEAT A THEORY Although loss aversion, probability matching, the Law of Small Numbers, and representativeness are clearly irrational in certain contexts, they don’t amount to full theories of human psychology
…
arise from small, systematic glitches in how we perceive the world, and more important, how we act on those misperceptions. For example, we saw how loss aversion easily explains the phenomenon of rogue traders, tens of billions of dollars at a time, a rather large difference from market efficiency. Clearly, human decision
…
forever. The problem is that regulators are human too, and as we explored in chapter 2, the same behavioral biases that lead to rogue traders—loss aversion—can also cause bank supervisors to wait too long before taking away the punchbowl. The Adaptive Markets framework includes regulators as part of the ecosystem
…
London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), 344 longevity risk, 408 Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM), 230, 241–244, 292, 294, 316, 321, 376 Loomis, Carol, 233 loss aversion, 58, 61–62, 65, 69 Lotta-Volterra equations, 279 Lou Gehrig’s disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), 409 Lucas, Debbie, 361 Lucas, Robert, 36, 37, 42
by Antti Ilmanen · 4 Apr 2011 · 1,088pp · 228,743 words
“arbitrage”. • Irrationality reflects biased beliefs (heuristic shortcuts, such as representativeness and conservatism, and self-deception, such as overconfidence and hindsight) as well as nonclassical preferences (loss aversion, narrow framing, overweighting low-probability events, etc.). • Behavioral finance literature is fun and offers stories for most observed empirical anomalies, perhaps too easily. • The best
…
revealed in Kahneman and Tversky’s experimental studies, are:— people care more about gains and losses (changes in wealth) than about overall wealth; — people exhibit loss aversion and can be risk seeking when facing the possibility of loss; — people overweight low-probability events. Here is a well-known example from behavioral experiments
…
the initial bonus and the gamble separately. Such findings, together with the observation that people tend to reject actuarially fair (50/50) gambles, point to loss aversion (losses loom larger than same-sized gains) [1]. Let us look at the specifics. In PT, people maximize the weighted sum of values (utilities) where
…
advantageous gambles as often as they do. • The value function is kinked at the origin or the “reference point”; the steeper slope below zero implies loss aversion. Many studies show that losses hurt twice to two and a half times as much as same-sized gains satisfy. Following the example above, the
…
. However, PT as described above pertains to one-off gambles. Risk preferences in a sequence of gambles depend on how prior gains and losses influence loss aversion over time. An experimental study by Thaler and Johnson finds evidence in favor of the house money effect—more aggressive risk taking following successful trading
…
, and cautiousness following losses. Such dynamic loss aversion is broadly consistent with wealth-dependent risk aversion. There is one interesting exception to caution after losses: if investors have a chance to fully recover
…
of rational explanations for each regularity. 6.5 NOTES [1] The second feature could also reflect classic risk aversion—diminishing marginal utility of wealth. However, loss aversion seems a more plausible explanation given the finding that expected utility maximizers should act in an almost risk-neutral fashion over small-stake gambles unless
…
decade may cast a long shadow on investor behavior. The two main behavioral explanations both require combining loss aversion with one other behavioral feature—a short time horizon (myopia) or the house money effect:• The myopic loss aversion model relies on a variant of mental accounting related to the investment time horizon (evaluation period
…
evaluate their portfolios very frequently, the odds of risky assets outperforming riskless ones are close to 50/50 and loss aversion kicks in. Over longer horizons, the odds steadily improve. A typical degree of loss aversion applied to annual changes in financial wealth can justify an equity premium of 6.5%, suggesting that an
…
which investors derive utility both from consumption and from annual changes in wealth. They too assume a typical degree of loss aversion (just above 2) but find that a model with constant loss aversion cannot fully explain the equity premium puzzle. However, they can resolve the puzzle if they include in their model the
…
“house money effect”—the idea that the degree of loss aversion varies dynamically with prior gains and losses. The model thus implies that investors’ risk attitudes become more conservative in down-markets. The next section shows
…
the long run: A potential resolution of asset pricing puzzles,” Journal of Finance 59(4), 1481–1509. Barberis, Nicholas; and Ming Huang (2001), “Mental accounting, loss aversion, and individual stock returns,” Journal of Finance 56, 1247–1292. Barberis, Nicholas; and Ming Huang (2008), “Stocks as lotteries: The implications of probability weighting for
…
. Bekaert, Geert; and Xiaozheng Wang (2010), “Inflation risk and the inflation risk premium,” Economic Policy, 25, 755–806. Benartzi, Shlomo; and Richard Thaler (1995), “Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 110, 75–92. Benzoni, Luca; Pierre Collin-Dufresne; and Robert S. Goldstein (2010), “Explaining asset pricing
…
institutional practices insurance selling/buying key debates large investors leverage liquidity lottery selling/buying market timing recent success takeaways theory lookahead bias lookback bias loss loss aversion models lottery approaches LTCM HF management lunar cycle macro-finance models, BRP managers hedge funds PE funds skill styles marginal utility (MU) market-cap-weighted
…
Moody’s mortgage-backed securities (MBS) Moses see Mei—Moses Mount Lucas Management (MLMCCO) trend-following index MU see marginal utility multi-factor models myopic loss aversion model narrow framing, PT National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) NCREIF real estate index noise traders nominal bonds non-government bonds non-zero yield spreads
by Peter L. Bernstein · 23 Aug 1996 · 415pp · 125,089 words
willing to choose a gamble when they consider it appropriate. But if they are not risk-averse, what are they? "The major driving force is loss aversion," writes Tversky (italics added). "It is not so much that people hate uncertainty-but rather, they hate losing."6 Losses will always loom larger than
…
your losses is also a good idea, but investors hate to take losses, because, tax considerations aside, a loss taken is an acknowledgment of error. Loss-aversion combined with ego leads investors to gamble by clinging to their mistakes in the fond hope that some day the market will vindicate their judgment
…
is relatively unimportant. The start-up company's performance as compared with Johnson & Johnson's performance taken as a reference point is what matters. Second, loss aversion and anxiety will make the joy of winning on the start-up company less than the pain if you lose on it. Johnson & Johnson is
…
, stockholders would have been wealthier than they had been. To explain the puzzle, Shefrin and Statman draw on mental accounting, self-control, decision regret, and loss aversion. In the spirit of Adam Smith's "impartial spectactor" and Sigmund Freud's "superego," investors resort to these deviations from rational decision-making because they
…
survival is vulnerable to the risks of volatility. As a result, volatility tends to be underpriced, especially in the commodity markets, and the producer's loss aversion gives the speculator a built-in advantage. This phenomen goes under the strange name of "backwardation." In the twelfth century, sellers at medieval trade fairs
…
the Endowment Effect." Journal ofPolitical Economy, Vol. 98, No. 6, pp. 1325-1348. Thaler, Richard H., Amos Tversky, and Jack L. Knetsch, 1991. "Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias." Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 193-206. Todhunter, Isaac, 1931. A History of the Mathematical Theory of
by Torben Iversen and Philipp Rehm · 18 May 2022
average risks because there is no such thing as an actuarially accurate policy position. Nevertheless, under reasonable assumptions, the center is the preferred position of “loss-averse” voters who try to avoid making big mistakes if they are ill-informed. The result follows from spatial voting under uncertainty where voters minimize the
by Daniel Z. Lieberman and Michael E. Long · 13 Aug 2018 · 287pp · 78,609 words
by Michael J. Mauboussin · 1 Jan 2006 · 348pp · 83,490 words
by Vijay Singal · 15 Jun 2004 · 369pp · 128,349 words
by David Brooks · 8 Mar 2011 · 487pp · 151,810 words
by Sam Harris · 5 Oct 2010 · 412pp · 115,266 words
by Pete Dyson and Rory Sutherland · 15 Jan 2021 · 342pp · 72,927 words
by Dr. Dan Ariely and Jeff Kreisler · 7 Nov 2017 · 302pp · 87,776 words
by Scott E. Page · 27 Nov 2018 · 543pp · 153,550 words
by Victor Haghani and James White · 27 Aug 2023 · 314pp · 122,534 words
by Chip Heath and Dan Heath · 26 Mar 2013 · 316pp · 94,886 words
by Michael S. Barr · 20 Mar 2012
by Chris Nodder · 4 Jun 2013 · 254pp · 79,052 words
by Steven Pinker · 24 Sep 2012 · 1,351pp · 385,579 words
by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein · 7 Apr 2008 · 304pp · 22,886 words
by Jeremy Siegel · 7 Jan 2014 · 517pp · 139,477 words
by Antti Ilmanen · 24 Feb 2022
by Norton Reamer and Jesse Downing · 19 Feb 2016
by Peter L. Bernstein · 3 May 2007
by Dan Ariely and William Haefeli · 18 May 2015 · 184pp · 35,076 words
by Richard H. Thaler · 10 May 2015 · 500pp · 145,005 words
by Richard Robb · 12 Nov 2019 · 202pp · 58,823 words
by Sebastien Page · 4 Nov 2020 · 367pp · 97,136 words
by Oded Galor · 22 Mar 2022 · 426pp · 83,128 words
by Steven Pinker · 14 Oct 2021 · 533pp · 125,495 words
by Mervyn King and John Kay · 5 Mar 2020 · 807pp · 154,435 words
by Gautam Baid · 1 Jun 2020 · 1,239pp · 163,625 words
by William Poundstone · 1 Jan 2010 · 519pp · 104,396 words
by Jeremy J. Siegel · 18 Dec 2007
by Daniel Crosby · 15 Feb 2018 · 249pp · 77,342 words
by Burton G. Malkiel · 5 Jan 2015 · 482pp · 121,672 words
by Dan Ariely · 31 May 2010 · 324pp · 93,175 words
by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner · 4 May 2015 · 306pp · 85,836 words
by Simon McCarthy-Jones · 12 Apr 2021
by Barry Schwartz · 1 Jan 2004 · 241pp · 75,516 words
by Nassim Nicholas Taleb · 20 Feb 2018 · 306pp · 82,765 words
by Josh Kaufman · 2 Feb 2011 · 624pp · 127,987 words
by Robert M. Sapolsky · 1 May 2017 · 1,261pp · 294,715 words
by Calestous Juma · 20 Mar 2017
by Rory Sutherland · 6 May 2019 · 401pp · 93,256 words
by Brent Donnelly · 11 May 2021
by Richard A. Brealey, Stewart C. Myers and Franklin Allen · 15 Feb 2014
by Scott J. Shapiro · 523pp · 154,042 words
by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman · 19 Feb 2013 · 407pp · 109,653 words
by Designing The Mind and Ryan A Bush · 10 Jan 2021
by Richard E. Nisbett · 17 Aug 2015 · 397pp · 109,631 words
by Cass R. Sunstein · 25 Mar 2014 · 168pp · 46,194 words
by Diane Mulcahy · 8 Nov 2016 · 229pp · 61,482 words
by Dan Ariely · 3 Apr 2013 · 898pp · 266,274 words
by Chris Voss and Tahl Raz · 3 Oct 1989 · 310pp · 82,592 words
by William Poundstone · 4 Jan 2012 · 260pp · 77,007 words
by Peter Sims · 18 Apr 2011 · 207pp · 57,959 words
by Adam L. Alter · 15 Feb 2017 · 331pp · 96,989 words
by Stephen D. King · 17 Jun 2013 · 324pp · 90,253 words
by Ben Carlson · 14 May 2015 · 232pp · 70,835 words
by Robert J. Shiller · 1 Jan 2012 · 288pp · 16,556 words
by Burton G. Malkiel · 10 Jan 2011 · 416pp · 118,592 words
by Kenneth Payne · 16 Jun 2021 · 339pp · 92,785 words
by Daniel Crosby · 19 Sep 2024 · 229pp · 73,085 words
by Taylor Larimore, Michael Leboeuf and Mel Lindauer · 1 Jan 2006 · 335pp · 94,657 words
by Lawrence Freedman · 31 Oct 2013 · 1,073pp · 314,528 words
by Diane Coyle · 14 Jan 2020 · 384pp · 108,414 words
by Alissa Quart · 14 Mar 2023 · 304pp · 86,028 words
by Robert H. Frank · 15 Jan 1999 · 416pp · 112,159 words
by Anthony M. Townsend · 15 Jun 2020 · 362pp · 97,288 words
by Robert Skidelsky · 3 Mar 2020 · 290pp · 76,216 words
by Douglas E. French · 1 Mar 2011 · 93pp · 24,584 words
by Gregory Brandon Salsbury · 15 Mar 2010 · 261pp · 70,584 words
by Michael Lewis · 6 Dec 2016 · 336pp · 113,519 words
by Yu-Kai Chou · 13 Apr 2015 · 420pp · 130,503 words
by Andrew Palmer · 13 Apr 2015 · 280pp · 79,029 words
by Peter H. Diamandis and Steven Kotler · 3 Feb 2015 · 368pp · 96,825 words
by Phil Thornton · 7 May 2014
by William J. Bernstein · 26 Apr 2002 · 407pp · 114,478 words
by Nassim Nicholas Taleb · 27 Nov 2012 · 651pp · 180,162 words
by Cass R. Sunstein · 7 Mar 2017 · 437pp · 105,934 words
by Gabriel Weinberg and Lauren McCann · 17 Jun 2019
by Andrew W. Lo and Stephen R. Foerster · 16 Aug 2021 · 542pp · 145,022 words
by Lee Freeman-Shor · 8 Sep 2015 · 121pp · 31,813 words
by Tom Vanderbilt · 28 Jul 2008 · 512pp · 165,704 words
by Rodrigo Aguilera · 10 Mar 2020 · 356pp · 106,161 words
by Reed Hastings and Erin Meyer · 7 Sep 2020 · 317pp · 89,825 words
by Jeff Atwood · 3 Jul 2012 · 270pp · 64,235 words
by Emrys Westacott · 14 Apr 2016 · 287pp · 80,050 words
by Dan Ariely · 19 Feb 2007 · 383pp · 108,266 words
by Douglas Rushkoff · 21 Mar 2013 · 323pp · 95,939 words
by Titus Winters, Tom Manshreck and Hyrum Wright · 17 Mar 2020 · 214pp · 31,751 words
by David Kerrigan · 18 Jun 2017 · 472pp · 80,835 words
by David McRaney · 29 Jul 2013 · 280pp · 90,531 words
by Tyler Cowen · 25 May 2010 · 254pp · 72,929 words
by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner · 19 Oct 2009 · 302pp · 83,116 words
by Ellen Ruppel Shell · 2 Jul 2009 · 387pp · 110,820 words
by John Allen Paulos · 1 Jan 2003 · 295pp · 66,824 words
by George A. Akerlof and Robert J. Shiller · 1 Jan 2009 · 471pp · 97,152 words
by Philip G. Zimbardo and John Boyd · 1 Jan 2008 · 297pp · 96,509 words
by Robert J. Shiller · 15 Feb 2000 · 319pp · 106,772 words
by Taylor Pearson · 27 Jun 2015 · 168pp · 50,647 words
by Eric Ries · 15 Mar 2017 · 406pp · 105,602 words
by Richard Shotton · 12 Feb 2018 · 184pp · 46,395 words
by Herminia Ibarra · 17 Oct 2023 · 200pp · 67,943 words
by Spencer Jakab · 1 Feb 2022 · 420pp · 94,064 words
by Robert H. Frank · 31 Mar 2016 · 190pp · 53,409 words
by David Weil · 17 Feb 2014 · 518pp · 147,036 words
by Michael Batnick · 21 May 2018 · 198pp · 53,264 words
by Eric J. Johnson · 12 Oct 2021 · 362pp · 103,087 words
by Niall Kishtainy · 15 Jan 2017 · 272pp · 83,798 words
by Elizabeth Willard Thames · 6 Mar 2018 · 179pp · 59,704 words
by Paul Roberts · 1 Sep 2014 · 324pp · 92,805 words
by Annie Duke · 6 Feb 2018 · 288pp · 81,253 words
by Amanda Montell · 14 Jun 2021 · 244pp · 73,700 words
by David Runciman · 9 May 2018 · 245pp · 72,893 words
by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus · 10 Mar 2009 · 454pp · 107,163 words
by Maurice E. Stucke and Ariel Ezrachi · 14 May 2020 · 511pp · 132,682 words
by Tony Crabbe · 7 Jul 2015 · 254pp · 81,009 words
by Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris · 10 Jul 2023 · 338pp · 104,815 words
by Charles Conn and Robert McLean · 6 Mar 2019
by Nassim Nicholas Taleb · 1 Jan 2001 · 111pp · 1 words
by Jonathan Rauch · 30 Apr 2018 · 277pp · 79,360 words
by Ted Seides · 23 Mar 2021 · 199pp · 48,162 words
by Winifred Gallagher · 9 Mar 2009 · 280pp · 75,820 words
by Peter H. Diamandis and Steven Kotler · 28 Jan 2020 · 501pp · 114,888 words
by Diane Coyle · 11 Oct 2021 · 305pp · 75,697 words
by Tom Chivers · 12 Jun 2019 · 289pp · 92,714 words
by George A. Akerlof, Robert J. Shiller and Stanley B Resor Professor Of Economics Robert J Shiller · 21 Sep 2015 · 274pp · 93,758 words
by Douglas Rushkoff · 1 Jun 2009 · 422pp · 131,666 words
by Aaron Perzanowski and Jason Schultz · 4 Nov 2016 · 374pp · 97,288 words
by Michael J. Mauboussin · 14 Jul 2012 · 299pp · 92,782 words
by Michael J. Mauboussin · 6 Nov 2012 · 256pp · 60,620 words
by Peg Streep · 14 May 2017
by Grant Sabatier · 5 Feb 2019 · 621pp · 123,678 words
by Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo · 12 Nov 2019 · 470pp · 148,730 words
by Steven Pinker · 10 Sep 2007 · 698pp · 198,203 words
by John Kay · 24 May 2004 · 436pp · 76 words
by Clint Watts · 28 May 2018 · 324pp · 96,491 words
by Aaron Brown and Eric Kim · 10 Oct 2011 · 483pp · 141,836 words
by Adrian Hon · 14 Sep 2022 · 371pp · 107,141 words
by Emma Chapman · 23 Feb 2021 · 265pp · 79,944 words
by Alexander Elder · 28 Sep 2014 · 464pp · 117,495 words
by Greg McKeown · 14 Apr 2014 · 202pp · 62,199 words
by Ernie Chan · 17 Nov 2008
by Nick Romeo · 15 Jan 2024 · 343pp · 103,376 words
by William Davies · 26 Feb 2019 · 349pp · 98,868 words
by Ariel Ezrachi and Maurice E. Stucke · 30 Nov 2016
by Douglas Rushkoff · 1 Mar 2016 · 366pp · 94,209 words
by Yochai Benkler · 8 Aug 2011 · 187pp · 62,861 words
by Kate Raworth · 22 Mar 2017 · 403pp · 111,119 words
by John Lanchester · 14 Dec 2009 · 322pp · 77,341 words
by Duncan J. Watts · 28 Mar 2011 · 327pp · 103,336 words
by Eduardo Porter · 4 Jan 2011 · 353pp · 98,267 words
by Timothy Ferriss · 1 Jan 2012 · 1,007pp · 181,911 words
by Seth Mnookin · 3 Jan 2012 · 566pp · 153,259 words
by Marshall Goldsmith and Mark Reiter · 9 Jan 2007 · 280pp · 82,623 words
by Penny Mordaunt and Chris Lewis · 19 May 2021 · 516pp · 116,875 words
by Jesse Norman · 30 Jun 2018
by John Lanchester · 5 Oct 2014 · 261pp · 86,905 words
by Paul Collier · 4 Dec 2018 · 310pp · 85,995 words
by Alexis Stenfors · 14 May 2017 · 312pp · 93,836 words
by Gregory Zuckerman · 5 Nov 2019 · 407pp · 104,622 words
by Salim Ismail and Yuri van Geest · 17 Oct 2014 · 292pp · 85,151 words
by Andrew Leigh · 14 Sep 2018 · 340pp · 94,464 words
by John Sviokla and Mitch Cohen · 30 Dec 2014 · 252pp · 70,424 words
by Dani Rodrik · 12 Oct 2015 · 226pp · 59,080 words
by Ray Kurzweil · 25 Jun 2024
by John Brockman · 18 Jan 2011 · 379pp · 109,612 words
by Thomas H. Davenport and Julia Kirby · 23 May 2016 · 347pp · 97,721 words
by T. R. Reid · 13 Mar 2017 · 363pp · 92,422 words
by Robert B. Reich · 21 Sep 2010 · 147pp · 45,890 words
by Jason Butler · 22 Nov 2017 · 139pp · 33,246 words
by David Boyle and Andrew Simms · 14 Jun 2009 · 207pp · 86,639 words
by Kelly McGonigal · 1 Dec 2011 · 354pp · 91,875 words
by Igor Tulchinsky · 30 Sep 2019 · 321pp