Cited by 485Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies

Investment behavior and the negative side of emotion

Shiv, Baba, Loewenstein, George, Bechara, Antoine, Damasio, Hanna, Damasio, Antonio R.·2005·Psychological Science

Abstract

Can dysfunction in neural systems subserving emotion lead, under certain circumstances, to more advantageous decisions? To answer this question, we investigated how normal participants, patients with stable focal lesions in brain regions related to emotion (target patients), and patients with stable focal lesions in brain regions unrelated to emotion (control patients) made 20 rounds of investment decisions. Target patients made more advantageous decisions and ultimately earned more money from their investments than the normal participants and control patients. When normal participants and control patients either won or lost money on an investment round, they adopted a conservative strategy and became more reluctant to invest on the subsequent round; these results suggest that they were more affected than target patients by the outcomes of decisions made in the previous rounds.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01553.x

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Patients with lesions to a variety of emotion-processing regions, including amygdala and prefrontal cortex, are much more likely to take a single gamble with possible losses.

    “a study showing that patients with lesions to a variety of emotion-processing regions (including amygdala and prefrontal cortex) are much more likely to take a single gamble with possible losses (32).”

    From Amygdala damage eliminates monetary loss aversion (2010) · cites this paper as [32]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shiv, B., Loewenstein, G., Bechara, A., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • University of Iowa
Corresponding author
Shiv, Baba
Venue
Psychological Science
Published
2005-06
Volume
16
Issue
6
Pages
435-439
ISSN
  • 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9280
OpenAlex
W2134962460
Cited by
485
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 32
FWCI
14.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
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 › Finance › Financial Markets and Investment Strategies
Keywords
investment decision-making, emotions, focal brain lesions, decision-making, risk aversion, conservatism, outcome effects, emotional dysregulation, financial decision-making
MeSH terms
Affect, Amygdala, Cerebral Cortex, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Investments, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Somatosensory Cortex, Logistic Models, Prefrontal Cortex

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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