The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 22 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Amygdala damage eliminates monetary loss aversion
Open accessAbstract
Losses are a possibility in many risky decisions, and organisms have evolved mechanisms to evaluate and avoid them. Laboratory and field evidence suggests that people often avoid risks with losses even when they might earn a substantially larger gain, a behavioral preference termed “loss aversion.” The cautionary brake on behavior known to rely on the amygdala is a plausible candidate mechanism for loss aversion, yet evidence for this idea has so far not been found. We studied two rare individuals with focal bilateral amygdala lesions using a series of experimental economics tasks. To measure individual sensitivity to financial losses we asked participants to play a variety of monetary gambles with possible gains and losses. Although both participants retained a normal ability to respond to changes in the gambles’ expected value and risk, they showed a dramatic reduction in loss aversion compared to matched controls. The findings suggest that the amygdala plays a key role in generating loss aversion by inhibiting actions with potentially deleterious outcomes.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Two rare individuals with focal bilateral amygdala lesions showed a dramatic reduction in monetary loss aversion while retaining normal sensitivity to reward magnitude and risk. The authors conclude that the amygdala plays a necessary role in generating loss aversion, possibly by signaling prospective losses and inhibiting actions with potentially deleterious outcomes.
Key findings
- Both amygdala-lesioned participants were far more willing than matched controls to accept mixed gain–loss gambles, with significantly lower risk premiums: S.M. t(5) = 7.76, P < 0.001; A.P. t(5) = 13.57, P < 0.001.
- Loss aversion parameter λ was 0.76 for S.M. versus a control mean of 1.52 (SEM = 0.19), and 1.06 for A.P. versus a control mean of 1.76 (SEM = 0.12); A.P. was essentially loss neutral, while S.M. showed mild loss-seeking behavior.
- The lesion participants retained monotonic sensitivity to reward magnitude and disliked increased outcome variance no differently from controls; in a gain-only “double or nothing” task, acceptance rates did not differ significantly from controls (S.M. t(5) = 1.16, P > 0.1; A.P. t(5) = 0.65, P > 0.1).
- The authors interpret the pattern as evidence that the amygdala is necessary for loss aversion, with loss aversion and general risk aversion depending on partly separable neural systems.
Methods
- Case study of two women with focal bilateral amygdala lesions caused by Urbach-Wiethe disease: S.M., 43, with lesions encompassing the entire amygdala plus subjacent white matter and anterior entorhinal cortex; A.P., 23, with lesions confined to the amygdala and occupying roughly 50% of each amygdala’s volume. Each was compared with a separate group of 6 healthy controls matched on age, gender, income, and education (12 controls total).
- Loss aversion task: participants received a $50 endowment and completed 256 trials (four 64-trial sessions) of accept/reject choices for 50/50 mixed gambles with gains from +$20 to +$50 and losses from −$20 to −$50 in $2 increments, covering all 16 × 16 gain–loss pairs. Choices were analyzed with logistic regression on expected value to estimate risk premiums; bootstrap procedures generated 500 pseudosubjects, and independent two-sample two-tailed t tests compared lesion participants with controls.
- Additional analyses: variance sensitivity was assessed using the orthogonality of expected value and outcome variance in the symmetric design; a separate gain-only “double or nothing” task used sure amounts of $2 or multiples of $5 from $5 to $50, with 11 trials each presented 8 times (88 trials total).
Limitations
- Stated: the sample size of lesion participants is n = 2, which is common in neuropsychological studies because focal bilateral amygdala lesions are very rare, but this limits generalization; lesion studies remain one of the few methods for investigating causal brain–behavior relationships in humans.
- Stated: differences between S.M. and A.P. and their respective control groups may be due to sociodemographic factors such as income, education, and aging, and S.M.’s more extensive amygdala damage may also partly account for the difference between the two lesion participants.
- Evident: the study has very small samples (two lesion participants and six controls per group), and the proposed amygdala-to-striatum mechanism is not directly tested here; the paper notes that future functional connectivity studies and fMRI in lesion participants could test this idea.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
13 Not checked yet · 12 Own interpretation · 6 Own method · 5 Own result · 2 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both amygdala-lesioned participants showed a strikingly higher willingness to accept gambles than their matched control groups.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This procedure showed that each amygdala-lesioned participant had a significantly lower risk premium than her matched control group, S.M. t(5) = 7.76 P < 0.001; A.P. t(5) = 13.57; P < 0.001”
plaincorrelationaln = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this task, there was no significant difference in the acceptance rate of each lesion participant and that participant’s matched controls S.M. t(5) = 1.16, P > 0.1; A.P. t(5) = 0.65, P > 0.1”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two participants have rare focal bilateral lesions of the amygdala (Fig. 1).”
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our account of the findings proposes that the amygdala computes a signal of prospective loss that is integrated with other information to guide behavioral choice.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first analysis exploited the fact that in our experimental design the outcome variance (VAR) of each mixed gain–loss gamble is orthogonal to the gamble’s EV (i.e., they are uncorrelated) (Fig. 5).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our findings demonstrate that the amygdala plays a necessary role in generating loss aversion”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · hedged
“The findings suggest that the amygdala plays a key role in generating loss aversion by inhibiting actions with potentially deleterious outcomes.”
boosteddirectn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · hedged
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Our findings demonstrate that the amygdala plays a necessary role in generating loss aversion and suggest that loss aversion may reflect a simple Pavlovian approach–avoidance response mediated by the amygdala (36, 37).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [36] Kahneman D, Frederick S. Frames and brains: Elicitation and control of response tendencies. Trends Cogn Sci. 2007;11:45–46. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [37] Dayan P, Seymour B. Values and actions in aversion. In: Glimcher P, Camerer C, Poldrack R, Fehr E, editors. Neuroeconomics: Decision making and the brain. New York, NY: Academic Press; 2008. pp. 175–191. [Google Scholar]
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That finding, and our present results from lesion patients, suggest that individual variance in amygdala function might contribute, together with other socioeconomic factors, to individual differences in loss aversion, even in healthy individuals.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we suggest that the amygdala may implement a very general biological mechanism for inhibiting instrumental behavior when outcomes are potentially aversive—a role that is expressed in monetary loss aversion shaping everyday financial decisions.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The laboratory monetary gamble task measures the same loss aversion that shapes everyday financial decisions.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 12
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
- Probably not a substantial claim. 19
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This analysis yielded λ = 0.76 for S.M., and a mean λ for the S.M. control group of 1.52 (SEM = 0.19). For A.P., λ = 1.06 whereas the mean λ for the A.P. control group was 1.76 (SEM = 0.12).”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“The values of λ estimated by our analysis show that neither amygdala-lesioned participant exhibits loss aversion whereas the control participant λ estimates are close to those found in previous studies (17, 18).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [17] Sokol-Hessner P, et al. Thinking like a trader selectively reduces individuals’ loss aversion. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106(13):5035–5040. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0806761106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [18] Tom SM, Fox CR, Trepel C, Poldrack RA. The neural basis of loss aversion in decision-making under risk. Science. 2007;315:515–518. doi: 10.1126/science.1134239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Critically, both lesion participants exhibited a marked dislike for increasing outcome variance, given a constant level of expected value. This was manifested in a reduction in gamble acceptance rates as a function of increases in the gamble’s variance (Fig. 6). Most importantly, their dislike for increased variance was no different from that of the controls.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Critically, both participants retained a monotonic sensitivity to reward magnitude (i.e., they preferred larger gains and smaller losses).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Loss aversion has been well documented in the laboratory and in many field settings (2), including high-stakes game show decisions (3), financial markets (4), politics (5), trade policy for declining industries (6), rate of organ donation for transplant cases (7) and has also been evident in monkey behavior (8).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychol. 1984;39:341–350. [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [3] Post T, Van den Assem M, Baltussen G, Thaler R. Deal or no deal? Decision making under risk in a large-payoff game show. Am Econ Rev. 2008;98:38–71. [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [4] Haigh M, List J. Do professional traders exhibit myopic loss aversion? An experimental analysis. J Finance. 2005;60:523–534. [Google Scholar] source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two participants were each compared to a separate group of 6 healthy controls (12 in total) matched to that participant on age, gender, monetary income, and education.”
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first participant, S.M., is a 43-year-old woman with a high school education whose lesions encompass the entire amygdala plus subjacent white matter and anterior entorhinal cortex. The second participant, A.P., is a 23-year-old woman with a college education whose lesions are entirely confined to the amygdala and encompass roughly 50% of the amygdala.”
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“loss aversion appears to increase with affective enrichment of “hedonic” consumer goods (e.g., music CDs versus computer disks) (11) and more generally with emotional attachment (12).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] Dhar R, Wertenbroch K. Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. J Mark Res. 2000;37:60–71. [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [12] Ariely D, Huber J, Wertenbroch K. When do losses loom larger than gains? J Mark Res. 2005;42:134–138. [Google Scholar] source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Across many studies, losses typically loom about 1.5–2 times as large as gains: for instance, people will avoid gambles in which they are equally likely to either lose $10 or win $15, even though the expected value of the gamble is positive ($2.50).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47:263–292. [Google Scholar] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“recent theories of amygdala function argue that the amygdala subserves an abstract function in detecting uncertainty (13) or ambiguity (14) in the environment and in triggering arousal and vigilance as a consequence.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] Whalen PJ. The uncertainty of it all. Trends Cogn Sci. 2007;11:499–500. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2007.08.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [14] Hsu M, Bhatt M, Adolphs R, Tranel D, Camerer CF. Neural systems responding to degrees of uncertainty in human decision-making. Science. 2005;310:1680–1683. doi: 10.1126/science.1115327. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“a recent study found that increased cognitive control of the autonomic emotional responses normally elicited by losses significantly reduced the susceptibility to loss aversion (17).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [17] Sokol-Hessner P, et al. Thinking like a trader selectively reduces individuals’ loss aversion. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106(13):5035–5040. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0806761106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“a tendency for amygdala-lesioned monkeys to approach stimuli that healthy monkeys avoid (15)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] Mason WA, Capitanio JP, Machado CJ, Mendoza SP, Amaral DG. Amygdalectomy and responsiveness to novelty in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta): Generality and individual consistency of effects. Emotion. 2006;6:73–81. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.6.1.73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“an idea motivated by a large literature implicating this brain structure in processing fear and threat (9), as well as in anticipation and experience of monetary loss (10).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] Adolphs R, Tranel D, Damasio H, Damasio AR. Fear and the human amygdala. J Neurosci. 1995;15:5879–5891. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.15-09-05879.1995. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [10] Kahn I, et al. The role of the amygdala in signaling prospective outcome of choice. Neuron. 2002;33:983–994. doi: 10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00626-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“a recent fMRI study (18 ) did not find amygdala activation associated with loss aversion”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [18] Tom SM, Fox CR, Trepel C, Poldrack RA. The neural basis of loss aversion in decision-making under risk. Science. 2007;315:515–518. doi: 10.1126/science.1134239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A plausible explanation that reconciles our findings with the previous fMRI study is that an initial negative anticipatory response is generated in the amygdala, influences the striatal computation of the gamble’s net value, and consequently leads to behavioral loss aversion through striatal mediation of instrumental behavior.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“lesion studies are one of the few methods in human neuroscience to investigate causal relationships between brain function and behavior.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“this is a standard procedure used in behavioral economics, which ensures that participants evaluate each gamble independently.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More specifically, lesions to the amygdala would result in a reduced input to downstream regions that compute value through integrating across multiple inputs.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note that the sample size of lesion participants (n = 2) is common in neuropsychological studies—indeed, many famous studies used only a single participant. The reason is that individuals with focal brain lesions such as the bilateral amygdala lesions here are very rare.”
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This procedure (i.e., bootstrapping at individuals level) was chosen because it is a more conservative procedure than the bootstrap at trial level, as it preserves the intersubject variability present in the control group.”
plaindirectn = 6- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this view, the amygdala produces an output signal in response to prospective loss, which is conveyed to other value-sensitive brain structures such as the ventral striatum and orbitofrontal cortex.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Amygdala and striatum have a well-documented anatomic connectivity (29) and show a tight functional coupling in stimulus–reward association and stimulus–cue devaluation (30).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [29] Amaral DG, Price JL, Pitkanen A, Carmichael ST. in The Amygdala: Neurobiological Aspects of Emotion, Memory and Mental Dysfunction. In: Aggleton JP, editor. New York: Wiley−Liss; 1992. pp. 1–66. [Google Scholar]
- Not checked yetcites [30] Baxter MG, Murray EA. The amygdala and reward. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002;3:563–573. doi: 10.1038/nrn875. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the case of evaluation of mixed gambles, this could result in a reduced aversive signal elicited by the prospect of potential loss together with normal appetitive signals triggered by the prospect of potential gain. As a consequence (in particular when the EV of the gamble is close to zero), the appetitive response to the gain component of the gamble may outweigh the aversive component in the”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In those examples, the amygdala is not the locus of memory or of choice, but it passes a signal to other brain regions for integration of such processes.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our findings could also shed some light on the nature of individual differences in loss aversion observed in many behavioral studies.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In this regard, the amygdala’s role in mediating loss aversion may be analogous to its role in modulating caudate- or hippocampal-dependent memory (31), and choice in reversal tasks (20).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] Packard MG, Cahill L, McGaugh JL. Amygdala modulation of hippocampal-dependent and caudate nucleus-dependent memory processes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1994;91:8477–8481. doi: 10.1073/pnas.91.18.8477. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [20] Hampton AN, Adolphs R, Tyszka MJ, O’Doherty JP. Contributions of the amygdala to reward expectancy and choice signals in human prefrontal cortex. Neuron. 2007;55:545–555. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2007.07.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
The laboratory monetary gamble task measures the same loss aversion that shapes everyday financial decisions.
“a role that is expressed in monetary loss aversion shaping everyday financial decisions.”
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?
In the citing paper
“Recent studies have shown that amygdala activity tracks the subjective values of rewards and punishments 14 and reflects individual preferences 15 .”
From Oxytocin modulates social value representations in the amygdala (2019) · cites this paper as [15]
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Consistentt(5) = 1.16reported p > .1 · recomputed p = .298
“t(5) = 1.16, p > .1”
- Consistentt(5) = 0.65reported p > .1 · recomputed p = .544
“t(5) = 0.65, p > .1”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Methods
“0.5[G − (0.5G + 0.5L)]2 + 0.5 × 0.5[L − (0.5G + 0.5L)]2”
§ Methods
“= (0.5G − 0.5L)2”
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk
Kahneman, D. J., & Tversky, A. (1988) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609220.014 · Cited by 32,720
Neurophysiological investigation of the basis of the fMRI signal
Logothetis, N. K., Pauls, J., Augath, M., Trinath, T., & Oeltermann, A. (2001) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35084005 · Cited by 6,551
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.39.4.341 · Cited by 6,544
Kahneman, D. J., & Tversky, A. (2013) · World Scientific handbook in financial economic series · doi:10.1142/9789814417358_0016 · Cited by 5,379
Serotonin transporter genetic variation and the response of the human amygdala.
Hariri, A. R., Mattay, V. S., Tessitore, A., Kolachana, B., Fera, F., Goldman, D., Egan, M. F., & Weinberger, D. R. (2002) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1071829 · Cited by 2,340
Consumer Choice between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods
Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.37.1.60.18718 · Cited by 2,239
The neural basis of loss aversion in decision-making under risk
Tom, S. M., Fox, C. R., Trepel, C., & Poldrack, R. A. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1134239 · Cited by 1,733
Frames, Biases, and Rational Decision-Making in the Human Brain
Martino, B. D., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1128356 · Cited by 1,687
The amygdala: Neurobiological aspects of emotion, memory, and mental dysfunction.
Aggleton, J. P. (1992) · Wiley-Liss eBooks · Cited by 1,536
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- TW Buchanan, D Tranel, R Adolphs The Human Amygdala and Social Function (Oxford Univ Press, London, 2009).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 441
Psychological mechanisms of loss aversion: A drift-diffusion decomposition
Zhao, W. J., Walasek, L., & Bhatia, S. (2020) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2020.101331 · Cited by 55
A meta-analysis of loss aversion in risky contexts
Walasek, L., Mullett, T. L., & Stewart, N. (2024) · Journal of Economic Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.joep.2024.102740 · Cited by 109
Combined Effects of Glucocorticoid and Noradrenergic Activity on Loss Aversion
Margittai, Z., Nave, G., van Wingerden, M., Schnitzler, A., Schwabe, L., & Kalenscher, T. (2017) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/npp.2017.75 · Cited by 47
“Importantly, two key regions of the salience network, the amygdala (De Martino et al, 2010; Sokol-Hessner et al, 2013; Gelskov et al, 2015), and insula (Canessa et al, 2013; Markett et al, 2016), have been associated with loss aversion, likely by mediating attention to potential losses.”
BackgroundfMRI data of mixed gambles from the Neuroimaging Analysis Replication and Prediction Study
Botvinik‐Nezer, R., Iwanir, R., Holzmeister, F., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M., Dreber, A., Camerer, C. F., Poldrack, R. A., & Schönberg, T. (2019) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-019-0113-7 · Cited by 48
Self-citationDecision-making under risk: A graph-based network analysis using functional MRI
Minati, L., Grisoli, M., Seth, A. K., & Critchley, H. (2012) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.02.048 · Cited by 45
“It is also important to consider that significant effects have also been observed for damage to the anterior insula and amygdala, which appeared rather peripheral in our reconstruction of the effective connectivity network (De Martino et al., 2010; Weller et al., 2009).”
BackgroundMethodBrown, J. K., Waltz, J. A., Strauss, G. P., McMahon, R. P., Frank, M. J., & Gold, J. M. (2013) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2013.02.034 · Cited by 49
“Other fMRI studies (De Martino et al., 2006, 2010) have found activity in the amygdala – a region involved in processing affective information (for a review see Phan et al., 2004) – to be most predictive of loss-averse behavior.”
To play or not to play: A personal dilemma in pathological gambling
Giorgetta, C., Grecucci, A., Rattin, A., Guerreschi, C., Sanfey, A. G., & Bonini, N. (2014) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2014.06.042 · Cited by 51
“Data in the Panel B represents, instead, the loss aversion index (lambda) calculated by the following standard procedure (De Martino et al., 2010 With the aim of investigating whether participants were differently sensitive to losses, we analyzed participants' behavior during the task, following…”
MethodInfluentialHeterogeneity of Loss Aversion in Pathological Gambling
Takeuchi, H., Kawada, R., Tsurumi, K., Yokoyama, N., Takemura, A., Murao, T., Murai, T., & Takahashi, H. (2015) · Journal of Gambling Studies · doi:10.1007/s10899-015-9587-1 · Cited by 46
“Because PG patients tend to have risk-taking personality and show reckless decisionmaking (Slutske et al. 2005), the intuitive assumption is that PG patients would show diminished loss aversion, as seen in amygdala lesion patients (De Martino et al. 2010).”
BackgroundHuang, D., Chen, S., Wang, S., Shi, J., Ye, H., Luo, J., & Zheng, H. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00038 · Cited by 50
“Evolutionary psychologists regard loss aversion as an instinct that evolved in humans (Breiter et al., 2001; Kenrick et al., 2009; De Martino et al., 2010; Sokol-Hessner et al., 2012).”
BackgroundReynaud, A., & Aubert, C. (2019) · The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review · doi:10.1057/s10713-019-00044-w · Cited by 43
Costumero, V., Barrós‐Loscertales, A., Bustamante, J. C., Ventura‐Campos, N., Fuentes‐Claramonte, P., & Ávila, C. (2013) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/ejn.12234 · Cited by 47
“…lesions promote the selection of immediate rather than larger delayed rewards (Winstanley et al., 2004), reduce aversion to monetary loss (De Martino et al., 2010), increase risk choices when considering potential gains (Weller et al., 2007), and increase the selection of high reward but…”
BackgroundChallenges and promises for translating computational tools into clinical practice
Ahn, W., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2016) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.02.001 · Cited by 43
“While early monetary decision-making tasks probing specific reward/risk constructs had limited success in distinguishing clinical populations from healthy controls [51], recent studies using theory-guided decision-making tasks have revealed specific cognitive processes and neural correlates associated with psychiatric…”
BackgroundDo Emotions Play a Constitutive Role in Moral Cognition?
Huebner, B. (2013) · Topoi · doi:10.1007/s11245-013-9223-6 · Cited by 45
Gelskov, S. V., Madsen, K. H., Ramsøy, T. Z., & Siebner, H. R. (2016) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.01.002 · Cited by 47
Testosterone Administration Related Differences in Brain Activation during the Ultimatum Game
Kopsida, E., Berrebi, J., Petrović, P., & Ingvar, M. (2016) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2016.00066 · Cited by 42
“Sixty milligram of Tostrex was administered to male and female healthy volunteers, 3 h prior to undergoing an fMRI session, during which they played a standard version of the Ultimatum Game.”
MethodTremblay, M., Cocker, P. J., Hosking, J. G., Zeeb, F. D., Rogers, R. D., & Winstanley, C. A. (2014) · Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/s13415-014-0271-1 · Cited by 42
Skov, M., & Nadal, M. (2019) · Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts · doi:10.1037/aca0000278 · Cited by 43
Lombard, E., Kometer, M., & Preuschoff, K. (2017) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428117730891 · Cited by 55
“The amygdala, too, was primarily associated with emotional relevance detection, in particular fear, before its potential role in financial decision making was further elucidated (Canessa et al., 2013; De Martino, Camerer, & Adolphs, 2010; Weller, Levin, Shiv, & Bechara, 2007).”
BackgroundPath dependence in risky choice: Affective and deliberative processes in brain and behavior
Hytönen, K., Baltussen, G., van den Assem, M. J., Klucharev, V. A., Sanfey, A. G., & Smidts, A. (2014) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2014.01.016 · Cited by 41
“De Martino et al. (2010) report that patients with brain damage n another affect-related region, the amygdala, show a dramatically lower level of loss aversion than healthy people do.”
Amygdala–prefrontal connectivity modulates loss aversion bias in anxious individuals
Xu, P., Dam, N. T. V., van Tol, M., Shen, X., Cui, Z., Gu, R., Qin, S., Aleman, A., Fan, J., & Luo, Y. (2020) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116957 · Cited by 44
Hardman, C. A., Ferriday, D., Kyle, L., Rogers, P. J., & Brunstrom, J. M. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0125869 · Cited by 43
“In the next part of the online questionnaire, respondents completed a monetary gambling task [35] to measure individual differences in loss aversion.”
BackgroundMethodSiebenthal, Z. V., Boucher, O., Rouleau, I., Lassonde, M. C., Leporé, F., & Nguyen, D. K. (2016) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsw152 · Cited by 43
“When examining decisionmaking, De Martino et al. (2010) found a specific reduction in aversion to loss in two patients with a very rare genetic disease with symmetrical and bilateral damage to the amygdala, suggesting a role of this structure in preventing actions with a potentially deleterious…”
BackgroundTestosterone, Cortisol and Financial Risk-Taking
Herbert, J. (2018) · Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00101 · Cited by 47
“The amygdala is concerned with the regulation of loss aversion (Sokol-Hessner et al., 2013), and damage to it reduces this aversion though without impairing the ability to recognize changes in monetary value (De Martino et al., 2010).”
BackgroundFox, C. R., & Poldrack, R. A. (2013) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-416008-8.00042-5 · Cited by 48
Manuel, A. L., Murray, N. W. G., & Piguet, O. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-55157-z · Cited by 40
The Behavioral Economics of Pierre Bourdieu
Hayes, A. S. (2020) · Sociological Theory · doi:10.1177/0735275120902170 · Cited by 49
“De Martino, Camerer, and Adolphs (2010) studied loss aversion in the brains of people with damaged amygdalas, the part of the brain that experiences emotions.”
BackgroundOxytocin tempers calculated greed but not impulsive defense in predator–prey contests
Dreu, C. K. W. D., Scholte, H. S., van Winden, F. A. A. M., & Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2014) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsu109 · Cited by 40
Spektor, M. S., & Kellen, D. (2018) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-018-1446-5 · Cited by 40
Gender effects for loss aversion: Yes, no, maybe?
Bouchouicha, R., Deer, L., Eid, A. G., McGee, P. J., Schoch, D., Stojić, H., Ygosse-Battisti, J., & Vieider, F. M. (2019) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/s11166-019-09315-3 · Cited by 45
Nonhuman gamblers: lessons from rodents, primates, and robots
Fabio Paglieri, A., Addessi, E., Petrillo, F. D., Laviola, G., Mirolli, M., Parisi, D., Petrosino, G., Ventricelli, M., Zoratto, F., & Adriani, W. (2014) · Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00033 · Cited by 41
“Furthermore, beyond the anomalies in the basal-ganglia and in associated fronto-cortical areas, recent evidence suggests that also deficits in amygdala functioning may be responsible for gambling behavior by significantly reducing loss aversion (De Martino et al., 2010).”
BackgroundReyna, V. F., & Huettel, S. A. (2014) · American Psychological Association eBooks · doi:10.1037/14322-002 · Cited by 42
Hill, C. M., Stringer, M., Waddell, D. E., & Arco, A. D. (2020) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2020.00294 · Cited by 42
“Punishment feedback is, in part, processed by the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and feedback-related ERPs have been associated with the activity of ACC (Holroyd and Coles, 2002; De Martino et al., 2010; Walsh and Anderson, 2012).”
BackgroundSocial Preferences and the Brain
Fehr, E., & Krajbich, I. M. (2013) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-416008-8.00011-5 · Cited by 44
Cao, B., Wang, J., Shahed, M. H., Jelfs, B., Chan, R. H. M., & Li, Y. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep35135 · Cited by 36
The Neurobiology of Context-Dependent Valuation and Choice
Louie, K., & Martino, B. D. (2013) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-416008-8.00024-3 · Cited by 41
Decision Preceding Negativity in the Iowa Gambling Task: An ERP study
Bianchin, M., & Angrilli, A. (2011) · Brain and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2011.01.005 · Cited by 42
How can neuroscience inform economics?
Krajbich, I. M., & Dean, M. (2015) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.07.005 · Cited by 33
“In other work, knowledge of the neural structures involved in loss aversion and strategic behavior led researchers to discover that patients with a disease leading to destruction of the amygdala are dramatically less loss-averse [41] and that across-subject variation in the volume of the temporoparietal junction (TPJ)…”
BackgroundEffects of Perceptual Uncertainty on Arousal and Preference Across Different Visual Domains
Ramsøy, T., Friis-Olivarius, M., Jacobsen, C., Jensen, S. B., & Skov, M. (2012) · Journal of Neuroscience Psychology and Economics · doi:10.1037/a0030198 · Cited by 35
Strategies for exploration in the domain of losses
Krueger, P. M., Wilson, R. C., & Cohen, J. D. (2017) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500005659 · Cited by 38
Increased Loss Aversion in Unmedicated Patients with Obsessive–Compulsive Disorder
Sip, K. E., Gonzalez, R., Taylor, S. F., & Stern, E. R. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00309 · Cited by 33
“Patients with dementia (18), schizophrenia (13), and amygdala damage (20) show reduced loss aversion compared to healthy controls.”
BackgroundSafety in Numbers: Why the Mere Physical Presence of Others Affects Risk‐taking Behaviors
Chou, E. Y., & Nordgren, L. F. (2016) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.1959 · Cited by 40
Computational models of subjective feelings in psychiatryPreprint
Kao, C.-H., Feng, G., Hur, J. K., Jarvis, H., & Rutledge, R. B. (2022) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.105008 · Cited by 45
“By expressing the concepts that comprise decision making under risk in mathematical form, psychologists have been able to test hypotheses about how these components may differ between individuals and could relate to brain function or mood (De Martino et al., 2010; Tom et al., 2007).”
BackgroundThe self’s choice: Priming attentional focus on bodily self promotes loss frequency bias
Sebri, V., Triberti, S., & Pravettoni, G. (2021) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-021-01400-8 · Cited by 33
Personal Bests as Reference Points
Anderson, A., & Green, E. A. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1706530115 · Cited by 33
Context-dependent sensitivity to losses: Range and skew manipulations.
Walasek, L., & Stewart, N. (2018) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000629 · Cited by 35
Value-Related Neuronal Responses in the Human Amygdala during Observational Learning
Aquino, T. G., Minxha, J., Dunne, S., Ross, I. B., Mamelak, A. N., Rutishauser, U., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2020) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2897-19.2020 · Cited by 28
van Holstein, M., MacLeod, P. E., & Floresco, S. (2019) · Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2019.109830 · Cited by 31
Bhatt, M. A., Lohrenz, T. M., Camerer, C. F., & Montague, P. R. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1200738109 · Cited by 32
“We find that amygdala activation correlates with baseline suspicion, which is consistent with the lesion literature showing impaired fear responses in people with amygdala damage (1, 2, 14, 21) (i.”
ResultSelf-citationLoss Aversion Reflects Information Accumulation, Not Bias: A Drift-Diffusion Model Study
Clay, S. N., Clithero, J. A., Harris, A. M., & Reed, C. L. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01708 · Cited by 32
“…loss aversion in one of two ways: either as a cognitive bias in avoiding losses (Kahneman et al., 1990), or in terms of differences in information processing arising from an attentional or emotional regulation component (Tom et al., 2007; Sokol-Hessner et al., 2009, 2015; de Martino et al., 2010).”
BackgroundAltered amygdala function in nicotine addiction: Insights from human neuroimaging studies
Mihov, Y., & Hurlemann, R. (2012) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.04.028 · Cited by 31
Financial Risk Aversion and Personal Life HistoryPreprint
Bucciol, A., & Zarri, L. (2013) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2356202 · Cited by 30
“6 See on this also De Martino et al. (2010). 7 Similarly, Lerner and Keltner’s (2001) psychology experiment finds that self-reported fear correlates with risk averse choices. See on this also Lerner et al. (2003). 8 For recent papers documenting the impact of emotionally charged experiences on stock market returns, se…”
InfluentialA Review Essay aboutFoundations of Neuroeconomic Analysisby Paul Glimcher
Camerer, C. F. (2013) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.51.4.1155 · Cited by 28
“De Martino et al. (2006) also found that amygdala activity was associated with common choices that reflect framing effects.”
BackgroundSelf-citationThe Structural and Functional Signature of Action Control
Schlüter, C., Fraenz, C., Pinnow, M., Friedrich, P., Güntürkün, O., & Genç, E. (2018) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797618779380 · Cited by 35
“Interestingly, it seems as if the amygdala is especially important when the results of a particular behavior are uncertain (De Martino et al., 2010; Hsu et al., 2005; Whalen, 2007).”
BackgroundA Triple-System Neural Model of Maladaptive Consumption
Turel, O., & Bechara, A. (2021) · Journal of the Association for Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/714366 · Cited by 32
“Functional neuroimaging studies seeking to understand consumer behavior have also implicated these systems in consumer reward (Chaudhuri 2006; De Martino, Camerer, and Adolphs 2010).”
BackgroundNegativity bias: An evolutionary hypothesis and an empirical programme
Lazarus, J. H. (2021) · Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2021.101731 · Cited by 33
Meade, C. S., Addicott, M. A., Hobkirk, A. L., Towe, S. L., Chen, N., Sridharan, S., & Huettel, S. A. (2017) · Addiction Biology · doi:10.1111/adb.12529 · Cited by 29
“In this network, we also identified limbic (i.e. amygdala and hippocampal) activation in response to gains, which is consistent with other studies supporting the role of the limbic system in loss aversion (De Martino et al. 2010; Sokol-Hessner et al. 2013).”
Park, K. F., & Shapira, Z. (2017) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/978-1-349-94848-2_250-1 · Cited by 42
Huh, H. J., Baek, K., Kwon, J., Jeong, J., & Chae, J. (2016) · Cognitive Neuropsychiatry · doi:10.1080/13546805.2016.1230053 · Cited by 29
“Several previous studies provided evidence that loss aversion reflect amygdale hyper-activation, which inhibits actions when outcomes are anticipated as aversive through avoidance response (Canessa et al., 2013; De Martino et al., 2010).”
BackgroundManssuer, L. R., Ding, Q., Wei, L., Yang, R., Zhang, C., Zhao, Y., Sun, B., Zhan, S., & Voon, V. (2022) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1717-21.2022 · Cited by 29
Brain Imaging in Gambling Disorder
Quester, S., & Romanczuk‐Seiferth, N. (2015) · Current Addiction Reports · doi:10.1007/s40429-015-0063-x · Cited by 28
Loss Aversion and Foreign Policy Resolve
Berejikian, J., & Early, B. R. (2013) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12012 · Cited by 27
Loss aversion and hypoxia: less loss aversion in oxygen-depleted environment
Pighin, S., Bonini, N., Savadori, L., Hadjichristidis, C., & Schena, F. F. (2014) · Stress · doi:10.3109/10253890.2014.891103 · Cited by 29
“…in incentive scheme, however, did not affect participants’ behavior as the mean loss aversion coefficient found in the control session is in full accordance with previous findings (De Martino et al., 2010; Tversky & Kahneman, 1992). between the normoxic and the hypoxic sessions was obtained.”
MethodResultInfluentialDecision making under hypoxia: Oxygen depletion increases risk seeking for losses but not for gains
Pighin, S., Bonini, N., Savadori, L., Hadjichristidis, C., Antonetti, T., & Schena, F. F. (2012) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500002801 · Cited by 28
“Following De Martino et al. (2006), the start-”
Don’t bet on it! Wagering as a measure of awareness in decision making under uncertainty.
Konstantinidis, E., & Shanks, D. R. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/a0037977 · Cited by 32
Amygdala Lesion Profoundly Alters Altruistic Punishment
Scheele, D., Mihov, Y., Kendrick, K. M., Feinstein, J. S., Reich, H., Maier, W., & Hurlemann, R. (2012) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.01.028 · Cited by 26
Quattrocchi, G., Monaco, J., Ho, A., Irmen, F., Strube, W., Ruge, D., Bestmann, S., & Galea, J. M. (2018) · eNeuro · doi:10.1523/eneuro.0453-17.2018 · Cited by 29
“With smaller perturbations, the motivational salience of punishment (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979; De Martino et al., 2010) may motivate participants to use a strategy (and thus show faster error-reduction) in circumstances in which they are more difficult to develop.”
Risk-taking, peer-influence and child maltreatment: a neurocognitive investigation
Hoffmann, F., Puetz, V. B., Viding, E. M., Sethi, A., Palmer, A. L., & McCrory, E. J. P. (2017) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsx124 · Cited by 29
“Heightened amygdala reactivity has been related to loss aversion in previous research (De Martino et al., 2010; Sokol-Hessner et al., 2013), suggesting that the observed pattern of reduced risktaking in the presence of a peer may in part be associated with increased salience signalling in response…”
BackgroundNeuronal Activity in the Primate Amygdala during Economic Choice
Jezzini, A., & Padoa‐Schioppa, C. (2019) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0961-19.2019 · Cited by 26
“In humans, bilateral amygdala lesions affect gambling and performance in trust games (De Martino et al., 2010; van Honk et al., 2013).”
BackgroundSchmidt, B. K., & Hewig, J. S. (2014) · The Psychological Record · doi:10.1007/s40732-014-0112-1 · Cited by 26
“That is exactly what many current studies on risk behavior do (Smith et al. 2002; Hsu et al. 2005; Tom et al. 2007; Hsu et al. 2009; DeMartino et al. 2010; Levy et al. 2010).”
BackgroundStetzka, R. M., & Winter, S. (2021) · Journal of Economic Surveys · doi:10.1111/joes.12473 · Cited by 35
Does ambiguity aversion influence the framing effect during decision making?
Osmont, A., Cassotti, M., Agogué, M., Houdé, O., & Moutier, S. (2014) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0688-0 · Cited by 33
Common and differential brain abnormalities in gambling disorder subtypes based on risk attitude
Takeuchi, H., Tsurumi, K., Murao, T., Takemura, A., Kawada, R., Urayama, S., Aso, T., Sugihara, G., Miyata, J., Murai, T., et al. (2017) · Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.01.025 · Cited by 27
Single-trial EEG dissociates motivation and conflict processes during decision-making under risk
Pornpattananangkul, N., Grogans, S. E., Yu, R., & Nusslock, R. (2018) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.12.029 · Cited by 28
“The first “linear-value” model assumes a linear value function (Brown et al., 2013; De Martino et al., 2010; Tom et al., 2007): uðxÞ ¼ jxj if x 0 λ*jxj if x < 0 (1) “u” is the utility of the potential monetary outcome.”
Kim, H. (2020) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2020.00281 · Cited by 28
Brevers, D., He, Q., Xue, G., & Bechara, A. (2017) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2017.01.009 · Cited by 22
Beliefs about others’ intentions determine whether cooperation is the faster choice
Santa, J. C., Exadaktylos, F., & Soto‐Faraco, S. (2018) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-25926-3 · Cited by 23
Neural mediation of greed personality trait on economic risk-taking
Li, W., Wang, H., Xie, X., & Li, J. (2019) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.45093 · Cited by 26
Nam, H. H., Jost, J. T., Meager, M. R., & Bavel, J. J. V. (2021) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2020.0137 · Cited by 24
“Studies of other human patients with amygdala lesions found that damage to this region was associated with diminished loss aversion [55].”
BackgroundThe role of limbic structures in financial abilities of mild cognitive impairment patients
Benavides‐Varela, S., Burgio, F., Weis, L., Mitolo, M., Palmer, K., Toffano, R., Arcara, G., Vallesi, A., Mantini, D., Meneghello, F., et al. (2020) · NeuroImage Clinical · doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2020.102222 · Cited by 23
The Commonality of Loss Aversion across Procedures and Stimuli
Lee, S. A., Lee, M. J., Kim, B. W., Gilman, J. M., Kuster, J. K., Blood, A. J., Kuhnen, C. M., & Breiter, H. C. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0135216 · Cited by 22
A pilot study of loss aversion for drug and non-drug commodities in cocaine users
Strickland, J. C., Beckmann, J. S., Rush, C. R., & Stoops, W. W. (2017) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.08.020 · Cited by 26
“Previous studies have used this measure to account for general aversion to risk over specific aversion to loss (De Martino et al., 2010).”
The Neurobiology of Sensory Valuation
Skov, M. (2019) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198824350.013.7 · Cited by 26
Xu, S., Hua, W., & Wang, C. (2019) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/psyp.13510 · Cited by 24
The Biological Benefits of Failure on Learning and Tools to Manage the Fallout
Margulieux, L. E., Prather, J. E., & Rahimi, M. (2025) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-025-10013-7 · Cited by 24
“Biologically, these components are all predicted by the level of activity in our amygdala (De Martino et al., 2010; Xu et al., 2020).”
Amygdala signals subjective appetitiveness and aversiveness of mixed gambles
Gelskov, S. V., Henningsson, S., Madsen, K. H., Siebner, H. R., & Ramsøy, T. Z. (2015) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2015.02.016 · Cited by 23
“…of the amygdala correlated nicely with the degree of individual loss-aversion biases, extending previous studies that have implicated the amygdala in loss processing and behavioral loss aversion (Canessa et al., 2013; De Martino et al., 2010; Sokol-Hessner et al., 2013; Yacubian et al., 2006).”
BackgroundResultAnxiety promotes memory for mood-congruent faces but does not alter loss aversion
Charpentier, C. J., Hindocha, C., Roiser, J. P., & Robinson, O. J. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep24746 · Cited by 25
Manssuer, L. R., Ding, Q., Liu, W., Yang, R., Linbin, W., Chencheng, Z., Yijie, Z., Bomin, S., Shikun, Z., & Valerie, V. (2022) · Apollo (University of Cambridge) · doi:10.17863/cam.80077 · Cited by 21
Variability in the analysis of a single neuroimaging dataset by many teamsPreprint
Botvinik‐Nezer, R., Holzmeister, F., Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M., Iwanir, R., Mumford, J. A., Adcock, R. A., et al. (2019) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/843193 · Cited by 21
Self-citationMeta-Analysis of Empirical Estimates of Loss-AversionPreprint
Brown, A. L., Imai, T., Vieider, F. M., & Camerer, C. (2020) · Social Science Research Network · doi:10.31222/osf.io/hnefr · Cited by 161
Self-citationManuel, A. L., Roquet, D., Landín-Romero, R., Kumfor, F., Ahmed, R. M., Hodges, J. R., & Piguet, O. (2020) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsaa085 · Cited by 21
Gains and Losses Affect Learning Differentially at Low and High Attentional Load
Boroujeni, K. B., Watson, M. R., & Womelsdorf, T. (2022) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01885 · Cited by 20
Zhang, X., Chen, X., Gao, Y., Liu, Y., & Liu, Y. (2018) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.031 · Cited by 22
Gain–loss situation modulates neural responses to self–other decision making under risk
Zhang, X., Li, S., Liu, Y., Chen, X., Shang, X., Qi, F., Wang, X., Guo, X., & Chen, J. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-37236-9 · Cited by 21
Yin, C., Li, B., & Gao, T. (2023) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00242.2023 · Cited by 19
Timmer, M. H. M., Sescousse, G., Esselink, R. A. J., Piray, P., & Cools, R. (2017) · Computational Psychiatry · doi:10.1162/cpsy_a_00011 · Cited by 18
Unpleasant odors increase aversion to monetary losses
Stančák, A., Xie, Y., Fallon, N. B., Bulsing, P. J., Giesbrecht, T., Thomas, A. K., & Pantelous, A. A. (2015) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2015.02.006 · Cited by 23
Electrophysiological indexes of option characteristic processing
Lin, Y., Duan, L. F., Xu, P., Li, X., Gu, R., & Luo, Y. (2019) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/psyp.13403 · Cited by 17
Newton‐Fenner, A., Hewitt, D., Henderson, J. R., Roberts, H., Mari, T., Gu, Y., Gorelkina, O., Giesbrecht, T., Fallon, N. B., Roberts, C. A., et al. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0286969 · Cited by 19
“For instance, we found no correlation with WTP in the PPC or the amygdala, both of which have been implicated in reward processing [24,154,155].”
BackgroundMolecular neuroimaging of emotional decision-making
Takahashi, H. (2013) · Neuroscience Research · doi:10.1016/j.neures.2013.01.011 · Cited by 20
Why and Under What Conditions Does Loss Aversion Emerge?1
Nagaya, K. (2021) · Japanese Psychological Research · doi:10.1111/jpr.12385 · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- De Martino, B., Camerer, C. F., & Adolphs, R.
- Affiliations
- California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125; and
- California Institute of Technology (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2010-02-23
- Volume
- 107
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 3788-3792
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC2840433
- OpenAlex
- W2131236995
- Cited by
- 444
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 23
- FWCI
- 19.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Wellcome Trust
- National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH080721)
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (P01NS019632)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Keywords
- loss aversion, amygdala, monetary gambles, risk aversion, expected value, neuroeconomics, behavioral economics
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Amygdala, Female, Gambling, Humans, Middle Aged
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
