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
0 of 22 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA 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”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA 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”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesWhat 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).”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA 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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesWhat 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).”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA 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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- 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]
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA 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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA 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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- 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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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).”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✗ Asserted: fails✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✗ Asserted: fails✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably 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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably 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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably 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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably 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.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 2Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt 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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.
Two expressions for gamble variance are unequal
MinorThe stated variance calculation has an extra factor of 0.5 on its second term, so it does not equal the expression after the equals sign. For G = 20 and L = −20, the left side gives 300 and the right side gives 400.
“0.5[G − (0.5G + 0.5L)]2 + 0.5 × 0.5[L − (0.5G + 0.5L)]2”
“= (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
Flagged first, then by citations
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 201–300 of 441
Manzoor, N., Molins, F., & Serrano, M. Á. (2021) · International Journal of Psychophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2021.01.002 · Cited by 20
Altruism costs—the cheap signal from amygdala
Gospic, K. A. M., Sundberg, M., Maeder, J., Fransson, P., Petrović, P., Isacsson, G., Karlström, A., & Ingvar, M. (2013) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nst118 · Cited by 19
“…aspects of decisions such as risk (Brand et al., 2007; Talmi et al., 2009; Gupta et al., 2011), regret (Coricelli et al., 2007; Nicollea et al., 2011), broken promises (Baumgartner et al., 2009), monetary loss aversion (De Martino et al., 2010) and cost input (Basten et al., 2010; Li et al., 2011).”
BackgroundWu, Y., van Dijk, E., Aitken, M. R. F., & Clark, L. (2015) · Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/s13415-015-0395-y · Cited by 18
Tanaka, S., Yahata, N., Todokoro, A., Kawakubo, Y., Kano, Y., Nishimura, Y., Ishii‐Takahashi, A., Ohtake, F., & Kasai, K. (2018) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-24944-5 · Cited by 14
Artificial Intelligence: Financial Trading and Neurology of Decision
Njegovanović, A. (2018) · Financial Markets Institutions and Risks · doi:10.21272/fmir.2(2).58-68.2018 · Cited by 22
“The exploratory factors behind this behavior are increasing amygdala loss activity by dictating a loss avoidance model rather than attempting to collect gains in accordance with the discovery of amygdal damage by eliminating the defiance of loss (De martino et al., 2010).”
Preferences for fairness over losses
Thunström, L. (2019) · Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics · doi:10.1016/j.socec.2019.101469 · Cited by 15
Imaging genetics for utility of risks over gains and losses
Zhong, S., Chark, R., Ebstein, R. P., & Chew, S. H. (2011) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.07.031 · Cited by 16
“Following Tom et al.(2007), a study using the same mixed lottery design (De Martino et al., 2010) on subjects with amygdala lesions reveals that they are more tolerant towards mixed risks.”
BackgroundSchmidt, B. K., & Hewig, J. S. (2016) · The Psychological Record · doi:10.1007/s40732-016-0174-3 · Cited by 16
“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).”
BackgroundNavigating Motivation: A Semantic and Subjective Atlas of 7 Motives
Chierchia, G., Przyrembel, M., Lesemann, F. H. P., Bosworth, S., Snower, D. J., & Singer, T. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.568064 · Cited by 16
Neural bases of loss aversion when choosing for oneself versus known or unknown others
Arioli, M., Basso, G., Baud‐Bovy, G., Mattioni, L., Poggi, P., & Canessa, N. (2023) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhad025 · Cited by 16
Schmidt, B. K., Keßler, L., Hecht, H., Hewig, J. S., Holroyd, C. B., & Miltner, W. H. R. (2018) · Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/s13415-018-00656-1 · Cited by 16
Risk attitudes and digit ratio (2D:4D): Evidence from prospect theory
Neyse, L., Vieider, F. M., Ring, P., Probst, C. C., Kaernbach, C., van Eimeren, T., & Schmidt, U. (2020) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/s11166-020-09321-w · Cited by 13
Monoamines and assessment of risks
Takahashi, H. (2012) · Current Opinion in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/j.conb.2012.06.003 · Cited by 16
Understanding decision neuroscience: A multidisciplinary perspective and neural substrates
Miyapuram, K. P., & Pammi, V. S. C. (2013) · Progress in brain research · doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-62604-2.00014-9 · Cited by 18
'At Least I Didn't Lose Money' - Nominal Loss Aversion Shapes Evaluations of Housing TransactionsPreprint
Stephens, T., & Tyran, J. (2012) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2162415 · Cited by 14
“…nominal percentage changes and changes in accumulated inflation (price levels) over the 6 This view is consistent with neuroeconomic research by De Martino, Camerer, and Adolphs (2010), who find that amygdala damage eliminates monetary loss aversion. holding period, allowing them to compute…”
ResultGianelli, C., Basso, G., Manera, M. R., Poggi, P., & Canessa, N. (2021) · Addiction Biology · doi:10.1111/adb.13088 · Cited by 13
DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOSS AVERSION QUESTIONNAIRE
Baets, S. D., & Buelens, M. (2012) · Cited by 12
Amygdaloid and non-amygdaloid fear both influence avoidance of risky foraging in hungry rats
Kim, E., Kim, E. J., Yeh, R., Shin, M., Bobman, J., Krasne, F. B., & Kim, J. J. (2014) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.3357 · Cited by 15
“‘experiments of nature’ that seem to provide evidence for a role of the amygdala in cases where some choices are feared [35], and behavioral tests show clear signs of decreased risk aversion in the absence of amygdala function [36].”
BackgroundBobadilla-Suarez, S., Guest, O., & Love, B. C. (2020) · Communications Biology · doi:10.1038/s42003-020-01315-3 · Cited by 15
Brain 5-HT2A receptor binding and its neural network related to behavioral inhibition system
Kojima, K., Hirano, S., Kimura, Y., Seki, C., Ikoma, Y., Takahata, K., Ito, T., Yokokawa, K., Hashimoto, H., Kawamura, K., et al. (2022) · Brain Imaging and Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11682-021-00609-2 · Cited by 12
Decision-making styles during stressful scenarios: The role of anxiety in COVID-19 pandemic
da Rocha, M. C. M., Malloy‐Diniz, L. F., Romano‐Silva, M. A., Joaquim, R. M., Serpa, A. L. D. O., Díaz, A. P., de Paula, J. J., Costa, D. S., da Silva, A. G., Pinto, A. L. D. C. B., et al. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1105662 · Cited by 15
“Other studies also suggest that anxiety is associated with higher levels of loss aversion (35, 36).”
BackgroundFear-induced increases in loss aversion are linked to increased neural negative-value coding
Schulreich, S., Gerhardt, H., Meshi, D., & Heekeren, H. R. (2020) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsaa091 · Cited by 16
“Along with a whole-brain analysis, we investigated the amygdala as an a priori ROI, given its abovementioned role in emotion processing (Tovote et al., 2015) and loss aversion (De Martino et al., 2010; Canessa et al., 2013; Charpentier et al., 2016).”
BackgroundMethodDeciding for Future Selves Reduces Loss Aversion
Cheng, Q., & He, G. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01644 · Cited by 15
Lim, S.-L., & Bruce, A. S. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00330 · Cited by 14
“There are also individual differences in loss aversion, with some individuals particularly averse to situations that include possible losses (Tversky and Kahneman, 1991; De Martino et al., 2010).”
BackgroundInfluence of uncertainty on framed decision-making with moral dilemma
Merlhiot, G., Mermillod, M., Pennec, J. L., Dutheil, F., & Mondillon, L. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0197923 · Cited by 12
Zhang, X., Wang, X., Dong, D., Sun, X., Zhong, X., Xiong, G., Cheng, C., Lei, H., Chai, Y., Yu, M., et al. (2023) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2022.09.003 · Cited by 11
CEO facial trustworthiness and corporate governance
Bi, W., Wang, Y., Xiang, Y., & Zhang, F. F. (2022) · China Accounting and Finance Review · doi:10.1108/cafr-03-2022-0016 · Cited by 11
The Genetics of Risk Aversion: A Systematic Review
Molins, F., Sahin, F., & Serrano, M. Á. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph192114307 · Cited by 14
“In addition, some studies addressed how different emotional regulation strategies were able to reduce loss aversion [13,87], how patients with injuries in regions typically identified as emotional lacked this bias [88], or how, certain factors such as unpleasant odors, which are capable of inducing a negative emotiona…”
BackgroundLoss aversion is not robust: A re-meta-analysis
Yechiam, E., & Zeif, D. (2025) · Journal of Economic Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.joep.2025.102801 · Cited by 16
Gao, X., Liu, J., Gong, P., Wang, J., Wan, F., Yan, H., Zhu, L., & Zhou, X. (2017) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsx062 · Cited by 11
“Neuroimaging and lesion studies have shown that the prefrontal (PFC)-amygdala circuitry plays important role in the framing effect (De Martino et al., 2006, 2010; Roiser et al., 2009; Gao et al., 2016).”
BackgroundNeuroeconomics of SuicidePreprint
Takahashi, T. (2011) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1111.6488 · Cited by 14
Prospect Theory and Political Decision Making
Vieider, F. M., & Vis, B. (2019) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.979 · Cited by 13
Zhang, Y., Zhai, Y., Zhou, X., Zhang, Z., Gu, R., Luo, Y., & Feng, C. (2022) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2896 · Cited by 10
Wheeler, A.-R., Truckenbrod, L. M., Boehnke, A., Kahanek, P. L., & Orsini, C. A. (2024) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/s41386-024-01925-z · Cited by 12
Zhang, Y., Chen, S., Hu, X., & Mai, X. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00185 · Cited by 10
How the brain responds to the destruction of money.
Becchio, C., Skewes, J., Lund, T. E., Uta Frith, A., Frith, C., & Roepstorff, A. (2011) · Journal of Neuroscience Psychology and Economics · doi:10.1037/a0022835 · Cited by 10
Exploring the scope of neurometrically informed mechanism design
Krajbich, I. M., Camerer, C. F., & Rangel, A. (2016) · Games and Economic Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.geb.2016.05.001 · Cited by 10
Self-citationApplying Neuroscience to Financial Planning Practice: A Framework and ReviewPreprint
James, R. N. (2011) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1968995 · Cited by 11
Keypress-Based Musical Preference Is Both Individual and Lawful
Livengood, S. L., Sheppard, J. P., Kim, B. W., Malthouse, E. C., Bourne, J. E., Barlow, A. E., Lee, M. J., Marin, V., O’Connor, K. P., Csernansky, J. G., et al. (2017) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2017.00136 · Cited by 10
“(Viswanathan et al., 2015), consistent with other neuroeconomic studies linking the NAc and amygdala to prospect theory-based metrics (Tom et al., 2007; De Martino et al., 2010; Canessa et al., 2013).”
ResultNeurocognitive underpinnings of cross-cultural differences in risky decision making
Chen, X., Ba, L., & Kwak, Y. (2020) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsaa078 · Cited by 9
“…in emotional processing (Kitayama et al., 2000; Miyamoto et al., 2014), based on the association between negative emotions and loss aversion (De Martino et al., 2010; Sokol-Hessner et al., 2013) and the fact that Westerners consider negative emotions to be less socially acceptable and as a…”
BackgroundDeterminants of financial loss aversion: The influence of prenatal androgen exposure (2D:4D)
Hermann, D. (2017) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.06.016 · Cited by 9
The Negative Association Between Positive Psychological Wellbeing and Loss Aversion
Koan, I., Nakagawa, T., Chen, C., Matsubara, T., Lei, H., Hagiwara, K., Hirotsu, M., Yamagata, H., & Nakagawa, S. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.641340 · Cited by 8
Powerful Individuals Behave Less Cooperatively in Common Resource Dilemmas When Treated Unfairly
Wang, X., Wang, M., Sun, Q., Gao, Q., Liu, Y., & Deng, M. (2019) · Experimental Psychology (formerly Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie) · doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000438 · Cited by 8
A literature review on neurofinance
Baechler, G., & Germain, L. (2018) · Finance · doi:10.3917/fina.392.0009 · Cited by 7
Medina, A., Torres, J., Kazama, A. M., Bachevalier, J., & Raper, J. (2020) · Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.1037/bne0000360 · Cited by 8
Consistency in probability processing as a function of affective context and numeracy
Traczyk, J., Fuławka, K., Lenda, D., & Zaleśkiewicz, T. (2020) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.2206 · Cited by 8
Association between arginine vasopressin receptor 1A ( AVPR1A ) polymorphism and inequity aversion
Tanaka, H., Nishina, K., Shou, Q., Takahashi, H., Sakagami, M., Matsuda, T., Inoue‐Murayama, M., & Takagishi, H. (2023) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2023.0378 · Cited by 7
Self‐Control Moderates Decision‐Making Behavior When Minimizing Losses versus Maximizing Gains
Pang, B., Otto, A. R., & Worthy, D. A. (2014) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.1830 · Cited by 11
“Given the association between loss aversion and emotion (Camerer, 2005; De Martino et al., 2010; Rutledge & Glimcher, 2009), it is reasonable that low self-control individuals experience more emotional aversiveness to losses than high self-control individuals because the former are less able to…”
BackgroundExploring aversion in an animal model of pre-motor stage Parkinson's disease
Rane, P., & King, J. A. (2011) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2011.03.001 · Cited by 8
The Effect of Wealth Shocks on Loss Aversion: Behavior and Neural Correlates
Pammi, V. S. C., Ruíz, S., Lee, S., NOUSSAIR, C. N., & Sitaram, R. (2017) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2017.00237 · Cited by 12
“Neurobiologically, we found a shared neural system underlying neural loss aversion, irrespective of treatment (De Martino et al., 2006, 2010; Tom et al., 2007; Brooks et al., 2010; Charpentier et al., 2015; Pammi et al., 2015), in sub-cortical areas such as the amygdala and the striatum.”
BackgroundDecision-Making in Gambling Disorder
Clark, L. (2016) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-805308-9.00027-0 · Cited by 9
To buy or not buy? A review of affective priming in purchase decision
Mograbi, G. J. C., & Mograbi (2012) · Neuroscience and Neuroeconomics · doi:10.2147/nan.s25110 · Cited by 8
“Interestingly, framing effects have been associated with amygdala activation, and damage to the amygdala leads to decreased monetary-loss aversion.(73,74) Accordingly, it is possible that in the reviewed study, positive-mood induction “offset” processing of negative emotion in the amygdala eliminated the “framing effe…”
Negative Tail Events, Emotions and Risk Taking
Corgnet, B., Cornand, C., & Hanaki, N. (2020) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.1093/ej/uead080 · Cited by 16
Algermissen, J., Rascu, M., Weber, L. A. E., den Boer, T., Martin, E. M., Treeby, B. E., Gray, M. D., Cleveland, R. O., Wittmann, M. K., Clarke, W. T., et al. (2026) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2026.03.009 · Cited by 11
Reward-dependent dynamics and changes in risk taking in the Balloon Analogue Risk Task
Sebri, V., Triberti, S., Granic, G. D., & Pravettoni, G. (2023) · Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/20445911.2023.2181065 · Cited by 7
“Moreover, decision makers are more sensitive to losses than to gains (Bornovalova et al., 2009; De Martino et al., 2010; Sokol-Hessner & Rutledge, 2019; Tversky & Kahneman, 1992).”
BackgroundThe Effect of Context on Choice and Value
Martino, B. D. (2011) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-381431-9.00005-x · Cited by 8
Poudel, R., Tobia, M. J., Riedel, M. C., Salo, T., Flannery, J. S., Hill-Bowen, L. D., Dick, A. S., Laird, A. R., Parra, C. M., & Sutherland, M. T. (2022) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2022.113867 · Cited by 7
Rodrigues, J., Ruthenberg, P., Mussel, P., & Hewig, J. S. (2022) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-022-03553-6 · Cited by 9
Emotion, utility maximization, and ecological rationality
Levin, Y., & Aharon, I. (2014) · Mind & Society · doi:10.1007/s11299-014-0151-y · Cited by 7
“23.3 and 23.5), or loss aversion (Camerer 2005; De Martino et al. 2010)—may well be instances of exaptation.”
BackgroundInfluentialStrength of resting-state functional connectivity associated with performance-adjustment ability
Kim, J., & Kang, E. (2018) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2018.02.024 · Cited by 7
“These findings suggest that the amygdala plays a key role in generating loss aversion by inhibiting actions that have potentially deleterious outcomes [46].”
BackgroundWhere You Stand Affects the Risks You Take: Socially Reference-Dependent Risk AttitudesPreprint
Lien, J. W., & Zheng, J. (2015) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2635424 · Cited by 7
“Recent research suggests that loss aversion has its neurological basis in the amygdala (De Martino, Camerer, and Adolphs, 2010).”
BackgroundHormones, Stress and Financial Decision Making
Herbert, J. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-45500-2_3 · Cited by 8
Social Risk Coding by Amygdala Activity and Connectivity with the Dorsal Anterior Cingulate Cortex
Kim, J.-C., Zangemeister, L., Tobler, P. N., Schultz, W., & Fabian Grabenhorst, B. (2024) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1149-24.2024 · Cited by 7
The effect of combining punishment and reward can transfer to opposite motor learning
Yin, C., Gao, T., & Li, B. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0282028 · Cited by 8
“In addition, people exhibit loss aversion in face of punishment [18, 19].”
BackgroundMayiwar, L., Hærem, T., & Furnham, A. F. (2023) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2023.112383 · Cited by 5
Neuronal and psychological underpinnings of pathological gambling
Singer, B. F., Anselme, P., Robinson, M. J. F., & Vezina, P. (2014) · Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00230 · Cited by 8
Reward Stability Promotes Group Commitment
Park, H., & Melamed, D. (2015) · Social Psychology Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0190272515609272 · Cited by 7
Li, C., Wang, X., Wen, C., & Tan, H. (2018) · Brain Imaging and Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11682-018-9962-5 · Cited by 7
Prosocial Gains and Losses: Modulations of Human Social Decision-Making by Loss-Gain Context
Feng, C., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Z., & Yuan, J. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.755910 · Cited by 7
Henn, A. T., Hüpen, P., Boccadoro, S., Ritter, L., Satterthwaite, T. D., Wagels, L., & Habel, U. (2023) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2023.108498 · Cited by 8
Is Self-Reported Risk Aversion Time Variant?
Jung, S., & Treibich, C. (2015) · Revue d économie politique · doi:10.3917/redp.254.0547 · Cited by 6
“De Martino et al. (2010) found that amygdala-damaged patients(5) take risky gambles more often than those without brain damage. Tison et al. (2012) also investigated the influence of health shocks on an individual’s preferences toward risk.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialNeuroeconomics, decision-making and rationality
Corcos, A., & Pannequin, F. (2011) · Économie et Institutions · doi:10.4000/ei.74 · Cited by 7
Investigating the influence of ‘losses disguised as wins’ on decision making and motivation in rats
Ferland, J. N., Adams, W. K., Murch, W. S., Wei, L. I. C., Clark, L., & Winstanley, C. A. (2018) · Behavioural Pharmacology · doi:10.1097/fbp.0000000000000455 · Cited by 6
Arioli, M., Richelli, L., Mattavelli, G. C., Cattaneo, Z., Poggi, P., & Canessa, N. (2025) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.70274 · Cited by 7
“…al. 2007; Sokol-Hessner et al. 2015), stimuli (e.g., large vs. small outcome range, or symmetric vs. asymmetric gain–loss matrices; Tom et al. 2007; De Martino et al. 2010), analytic approach (e.g., logistic regression vs. behavioral modeling; Tom et al. 2007; Sokol-Hessner et al. 2015), and…”
He, X., Qiu, B., Deng, Y., Wang, Z., Cao, X., Zheng, X., Zhu, J., & Zhang, W. (2024) · The Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1080/00223980.2023.2296946 · Cited by 6
“…role in generating loss aversion during economic decision-making (Canessa et al., 2017; Chandrasekhar Pammi et al., 2015; Charpentier et al., 2016; De Martino et al., 2010), and lower socioeconomic status is associated with reduced amygdala-ventromedial prefrontal cortex connectivity (Ramphal et…”
BackgroundThe role of loss aversion in social conformity: psychological and neural representations
Li, Y., Dam, N. T. V., Wang, Z., Zhou, J., Xu, P., Luo, Y., & Xu, P. (2024) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhae414 · Cited by 6
ARE THE DISABLED LESS LOSS AVERSE? EVIDENCE FROM A NATURAL POLICY EXPERIMENT
Arbel, Y., Ben‐Shahar, D., & Gabriel, S. A. (2015) · Economic Inquiry · doi:10.1111/ecin.12306 · Cited by 5
“For neurophysiological evidence on the asymmetry in the reaction to gains and losses see, for example, Weber et al. (2007), Votinov et al. (2010), De Martino, Camerer, and Adolphs (2010), and Tom et al. (2007).”
Burnham, T. C., & Phelan, J. (2022) · Journal of Bioeconomics · doi:10.1007/s10818-022-09330-6 · Cited by 5
“First, individuals with amygdala damage exhibit less risk-aversion following losses than individuals without such lesions (De Martino et al., 2010).”
BackgroundThe Lonelier, the More Conservative? A Research about Loneliness and Risky Decision-Making
Zhu, Y. Q., & Wang, C. (2017) · Psychology · doi:10.4236/psych.2017.810104 · Cited by 7
Common and distinct neural substrates of the money illusion in win and loss domains
Huang, Y., & Yu, R. (2018) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.09.032 · Cited by 5
The effects of negative and positive information on attitudes towards immigration
Igarashi, A., & Ono, Y. (2021) · International Migration · doi:10.1111/imig.12916 · Cited by 11
Blunted neuroeconomic loss aversion in schizophrenia
Currie, J., Waiter, G. D., Johnston, B. A., Feltovich, N., & Steele, J. D. (2022) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2022.147957 · Cited by 5
Component processes of decision making in persons with substance use disorders
Baitz, H. A. (2016) · Summit (Simon Fraser University) · Cited by 5
Emotion–Cognition Interactions in Memory and Decision Making
Speer, M. E., & Delgado, M. R. (2018) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119170174.epcn418 · Cited by 5
Kurz, K., Bock, C., & Hanschur, L. (2024) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2023.106378 · Cited by 6
Induced worry increases risk aversion in patients with generalized anxiety
Sporrer, J. K., Johann, A., Chumbley, J. R., Robinson, O. J., & Bach, D. R. (2024) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2024.115192 · Cited by 5
“These factors are considered to be unrelated and neurally distinct [19].”
BackgroundThe neural dynamics of loss aversion
Nie, S., Wang, M., Li, J., Luo, H., & Zhang, H. (2023) · Imaging Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/imag_a_00047 · Cited by 5
“Following the common practice of previous gambling studies ( Canessa et al., 2013; De martino et al., 2010; Tom et al., 2007), we withheld feedback in the experiment.”
The sign effect in temporal discounting does not require the hippocampus
Patt, V. M., Strang, C. C., & Verfaellie, M. H. (2024) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2024.108888 · Cited by 4
Can the neuroeconomics revolution revolutionize psychiatry
Hasler, R. (2011) · Cited by 4
Effect of uncertainty‐dependent residential mobility on loss aversion
Yu, M., Duan, Q., Wu, X., & Luo, S. (2021) · PsyCh Journal · doi:10.1002/pchj.475 · Cited by 5
Unraveling the Role of the Amygdala in Nicotine Addiction
Becker, B., & Hurlemann, R. (2016) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-800213-1.00026-2 · Cited by 3
The relationship between psychopathy and financial risk and time preferences
Shank, C. A., Dupoyet, B. V., Durand, R. B. B., & Patterson, F. (2020) · Studies in Economics and Finance · doi:10.1108/sef-11-2019-0435 · Cited by 4
The Psychology of Financial Choices: From Classical and Behavioral Finance to Neurofinance
Egidi, M., & Sillari, G. (2017) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781788973069.00015 · Cited by 4
Skin conductance responses in anticipation of gains and losses
Ring, P., & Schmidt, U. (2019) · Journal of the Economic Science Association · doi:10.1007/s40881-019-00067-z · Cited by 5
Boosting promotes advantageous risk-taking
Folke, T., Bertoldo, G., D’Souza, D., Alì, S., Stablum, F., & Ruggeri, K. (2021) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-021-00942-3 · Cited by 5
Neuroeconomics Insights for Decision Analysis
Hytönen, K., & Sanfey, A. G. (2011) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470400531.eorms0567 · Cited by 4
“For instance, in the case of loss aversion, there is evidence that points toward the role of emotions in enhancing the bias [28,47], and that the decision maker can reduce the influence of this emotional reaction in their decision making process by intentionally choosing to use an emotion regulation strategy [46].”
BackgroundThe Decision Making of a Financial PsychopathPreprint
Shank, C. A., Dupoyet, B. V., Durand, R. B. B., & Patterson, F. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3355774 · Cited by 4
“Furthermore, amygdala hypoactivity results in a reduction of loss aversion during financial tasks (Bechara et al., 1999; De Martino et al., 2010; Sokol-Hessner et al., 2012; Weber et al., 2007).”
Matta, R., Choleris, E., & Kavaliers, M. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_726 · Cited by 4
Active information sampling in health and disease
Attaallah, B., Petitet, P., & Husain, M. (2025) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2025.106197 · Cited by 3
“Previous studies have shown that amygdala activation correlates with expected loss when making decisions (De Martino, et al., 2010; Yacubian et al., 2006).”
What Are Investors Afraid of? Finding the Big Bad Wolf
Alemanni, B., & Uberti, P. (2019) · International Journal of Financial Studies · doi:10.3390/ijfs7030042 · Cited by 4
“Loss aversion reflects a prevalent avoidance behavior involving choices that could result in losses (De Martino et al. 2010; Lee and Veld-Merkoulova 2016).”
Background
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
