After reading the paper that this article was based on, this article and title feel sensationalized. It's not that the evidence of loss aversion was wrong, or s

After reading the paper that this article was based on, this article and title feel sensationalized. It's not that the evidence of loss aversion was wrong, or statistically invalid, but just may point to different underlying factors or psychological mechanisms. However, this is just a couple of researcher's opinions, and tomorrow a response article may come out saying that loss aversion IS supported by evidence. To me, this is the sign of a healthy science.