Research has shown that hedonic-contrast effects are a ubiquitous and important phenomenon. In eight studies (N = 4,999) and four supplemental studies (N = 1,809), we found that hedonic-contrast effects were stronger for negative outcomes than for positive outcomes. This asymmetric-contrast effect held for both anticipated and experienced affect. The effect makes risks that include gains and losses more attractive in the presence of high reference points because contrast diminishes the hedonic impact of losses more than gains. We demonstrated that the effect occurs because people are generally more attentive to reference points when evaluating negative outcomes, so drawing attention to reference points eliminates the asymmetric-contrast effect. 

When consumers compare a worse product to a better product, negative contrast can make the worse product less attractive, and positive contrast can make the better product more attractive. We show that positive contrast is relatively scope insensitive: the size of the difference between products affects negative contrast but not positive contrast. Even when the difference between products is small enough to make negative contrast negligible, positive contrast remains strong. This means that when consumers compare a product to a slightly worse product, contrast makes the better product more attractive without making the worse product any less attractive. The asymmetry occurs because consumers are less likely to consider the size of the difference between products when evaluating the better product than when evaluating the worse product, such that nudging consumers to consider the size of the difference eliminates the asymmetry. 

Negative experiences rarely occur in isolation – they are often part of sequences. A cramped airplane seat for a traveler may be followed by a connecting flight, and a boring lecture may be followed by another lecture soon after. In seven studies (N=3,372), we show that an experience that has a negative feature feels worse when this feature is expected to be better or worse in a subsequent experience. These findings reveal a previously overlooked hedonic cost of expectations: expecting a negative feature to differ between experiences sustains attention on that feature, intensifying its impact in the moment and lowering overall evaluations of the current experience.

Some people engage in sports gambling for the fun of it. We find that people tend to overestimate the impact of bet size on the fun they have. They believe that betting on the winner of a sports event is more enjoyable than simply predicting the winner, and that higher-stakes bets make the experience more enjoyable than smaller bets. This belief leads them to prefer larger bets over smaller bets. In reality, the enjoyment derived from gambling is relatively stakes-independent: at least within a certain range, lower-stakes gamblers derive as much enjoyment from watching a sports event as their higher-stakes counterparts. Simply predicting the outcome improves the watching experience to a similar extent as placing relatively large bets. This suggests that people can maintain the enjoyment of sports gambling while risking significantly less money—or even without risking any money at all.