Heath, Larrick & Wu (1999)'s own abstract states goals inherit loss aversion and diminishing sensitivity from the prospect-theory value function, and names effort among the phenomena this explains

behavioral-economicsloss-aversionreference-pointsmotivationprospect-theoryprimary-source-verification

Heath, Larrick & Wu, "Goals as Reference Points" (Cognitive Psychology 38(1):79–109, 1999), states in its own abstract — reproduced on co-author George Wu's Chicago Booth faculty site — that it treats "goals serve as reference points" and models outcomes "in a manner consistent with the value function of Prospect Theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Tversky & Kahneman, 1992)." The abstract further claims goals "inherit the properties of the value function — not only a reference point, but also loss aversion and diminishing sensitivity," and states the paper uses this account "to explain previous empirical results in the goal literature on affect, effort, persistence, and performance."

This confirms, in language traceable to the paper's own abstract rather than a downstream citation, three things: the paper explicitly imports the prospect-theory value function wholesale (reference point, loss aversion, and diminishing sensitivity, not loss aversion alone); it claims goals inherit all three properties; and it names effort — alongside affect, persistence, and performance — as one of the phenomena the account is built to explain. A second Tier-1 document from the same author, George Wu's "Foundations of Judgment and Decision Making" graduate course page (Fall 2016), independently glosses the same paper in near-identical language ("goals 'inherit' the properties of the value function") and frames its own comprehension question around the paper dividing explanatory work between loss aversion and diminishing sensitivity across "effort, attention, and persistence" — corroborating, from a second document by the same author, that the paper treats these as distinct mechanisms doing distinct work rather than an undifferentiated bundle.

This establishes the architecture underneath claim-goals-as-reference-points-below-goal-work-harder at Tier 1 from the primary's own abstract. It does not establish the specific below-goal-versus-above-goal comparative effort claim in the paper's own words — that remains open at question-verify-heath-larrick-wu-1999-goals-as-reference-points-primary. The full paper (paywalled; no open-access route found) was not read this session.