 Kahneman and Tversky (1984) argue that such experiments show that we attached greater disvalue to a loss than to the absence of a gain (a no-gain). Different descriptions of the same outcome lead to different responses by changing the baseline, affecting whether the outcome is perceived as a loss or a no-gain. These results may seem to threaten the relevance of the doing/allowing distinction: first by suggesting that the intuitions that supported the doing/allowing distinction can be explained by the loss/no-gain preference; second, by undermining the reliability of these intuitions. See Sinnott-Armstrong (2008); Horowitz (1998).