Deciding on secession: how familiar and unknown futures shape loss aversion

Loss aversion is well supported by experimental evidence from structured and well-defined private decision-making tasks, yet its role in political dilemmas remains uncertain. Logically comparing alternatives and evaluating the consequences of political decisions is often challenging and typically depends on substantive cognitive assessment. In secession referendums, voters must weigh the personal and collective future consequences of their choice. Using gain- and loss-framed scenarios that contrast certain and uncertain options, this online experimental study ( N = 401) examines how loss aversion shapes secession decisions with high-stakes implications for both the individual and collective levels. Results show that the combination of framing and scenario influences risk propensity. In a union scenario, voters take greater risks when outcomes are framed as losses. However, in a scenario where the regional government becomes an independent country, responses shift; gains frame riskier choices, while losses favor certainty. Regression analyses indicated that undecided voters are more likely to take risks when the status quo is framed as a loss, whereas framing secession as a gain is associated with risk-taking. The findings are consistent with the interpretation that unfamiliarity may lessen endowment effects and increases risk tolerance, particularly among undecided voters in contexts where options are not presented as logically equivalent, as is the case in real-life political dilemmas.