Cited by 130Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies

Neural mechanisms underlying paradoxical performance for monetary incentives are driven by loss aversion

Open access
Chib, Vikram S., De Martino, Benedetto, Shimojo, Shinsuke, O'Doherty, John P.·2012·Neuron

Abstract

Employers often make payment contingent on performance in order to motivate workers. We used fMRI with a novel incentivized skill task to examine the neural processes underlying behavioral responses to performance-based pay. We found that individuals' performance increased with increasing incentives; however, very high incentive levels led to the paradoxical consequence of worse performance. Between initial incentive presentation and task execution, striatal activity rapidly switched between activation and deactivation in response to increasing incentives. Critically, decrements in performance and striatal deactivations were directly predicted by an independent measure of behavioral loss aversion. These results suggest that incentives associated with successful task performance are initially encoded as a potential gain; however, when actually performing a task, individuals encode the potential loss that would arise from failure.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.02.038

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The opportunity to earn very large rewards can have a deleterious influence on performance, a phenomenon known as choking.

    “the opportunity to earn very large rewards has also been shown to have a deleterious influence, a phenomenon known in the psychological literature as choking.”
  • Recent neuroimaging studies have implicated the VS in both detrimental and facilitating effects of incentives on performance.

    “Recent neuroimaging studies have implicated the VS in these detrimental, as well as in the facilitating, effects of incentives on performance [39,40].”
  • Findings implicating the ventral striatum in incentive-based performance can arguably be accounted for in terms of the role of this structure in the expression of Pavlovian conditioned responses.

    “Findings implicating the ventral striatum in incentive-based performance [12,13,39,40] can arguably also be accounted for in terms of the role of this structure in the expression of Pavlovian conditioned responses.”
  • Performance of highly skilled motor behavior or instrumental responses that necessitate approach towards aversive stimuli might be impaired by incompatible reflexes elicited by Pavlovian cues.

    “Conversely, performance of highly skilled motor behavior or of instrumental responses that necessitate approach towards aversive stimuli might be impaired by incompatible reflexes elicited by Pavlovian cues [39].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Smith A. The Wealth of Nations Fifth Edition 1776 Methuen & Co., Ltd. London

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chib, V. S., De Martino, B., Shimojo, S., & O'Doherty, J. P.
Affiliations
California Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Chib, Vikram S.
Venue
Neuron
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-05
Volume
74
Issue
3
Pages
582-594
ISSN
0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2080054997
Cited by
130
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 3
FWCI
5.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuron (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Keywords
loss aversion, financial incentives, performance-based pay, striatum, incentive magnitude, motivation, reward encoding
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Avoidance Learning, Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Motivation, Oxygen, Risk-Taking, Time Factors, Feedback, Psychological, Young Adult, Executive Function

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review