Loss Aversion Designer

Execution Steps

Step 1 - Set the reference point Identify what the audience currently sees as normal. Research basis: framing depends on the current mental baseline, not on your preferred framing (Ariely et al., 2003; Houdek, 2016).

Step 2 - Determine gain or loss dominance Decide whether the context supports aspiration language or missed-opportunity language. Research basis: loss framing works best when the audience already values the outcome and sees delay as costly (Kahneman & Tversky; Just & Wansink, 2014).

Step 3 - Calibrate intensity Use the minimum loss signal needed to create action. Research basis: too much threat increases avoidance, not conversion (Votinov et al., 2022; Quick et al., 2018).

Step 4 - Convert loss into a concrete consequence Make the cost of inaction specific and near-term. Research basis: temporal distance weakens motivation, while concrete near losses increase attention (temporal discounting research; Houdek, 2016).

Step 5 - Keep the frame honest Use real tradeoffs, not invented panic. Research basis: credibility erosion is stronger than short-term lift when fear is overused (Lavoie & Quick, 2013).

DECISION MATRIX

Variable: audience risk tolerance

• If low -> use cautious loss framing with reassurance.
• If medium -> use balanced gain/loss framing.
• If high -> stronger loss framing may be acceptable if credible.

Variable: category trust

• If trust is low -> keep loss framing light and evidence-backed.
• If trust is moderate -> pair loss with proof and comparison.
• If trust is high -> a stronger missed-opportunity frame can work.

Variable: time horizon

• If the consequence is immediate -> use direct loss language.
• If the consequence is delayed -> translate it into near-term operational pain.
• If the consequence is uncertain -> avoid heavy loss framing.

FAILURE MODES - DO NOT DO THESE

Failure Mode 1

• Agents typically: use loss framing everywhere.
• Why it fails psychologically: audiences adapt and begin to ignore the threat.
• Instead: use loss framing only where the reference point supports it.

Failure Mode 2

• Agents typically: overdo fear and scarcity language.
• Why it fails psychologically: people disengage or defend against the message.
• Instead: keep the consequence specific and proportionate.

Failure Mode 3

• Agents typically: frame losses that are not actually credible.
• Why it fails psychologically: fake threat destroys trust.
• Instead: frame real, observable costs of delay or inaction.

ETHICAL GUARDRAILS

This skill must:

• Use honest tradeoffs.
• Avoid fear mongering and fake deadlines.
• Preserve user autonomy.

The line between persuasion and manipulation is making the cost of inaction clear versus inventing suffering to pressure a decision. Never cross it.

SKILL CHAINING

Before invoking this skill, the agent should have completed:

• @customer-psychographic-profiler
• @awareness-stage-mapper
• @trust-calibrator

This skill's output feeds into:

• @copywriting-psychologist
• @sequence-psychologist
• @price-psychology-strategist
• @scarcity-urgency-psychologist

OUTPUT QUALITY CHECK

Before finalizing output, the agent asks:

• Did I set a credible reference point?
• Did I choose loss framing only where it fits?
• Did I keep the consequence concrete and proportional?
• Did I avoid fear mongering?
• Does the frame preserve credibility and autonomy?

Limitations

• Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
• Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
• Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.