Cited by 73Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesLeadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies

A neuropsychological approach to understanding risk-taking for potential gains and losses

Open access
Levin, Irwin P., Xue, Gui, Weller, Joshua A., Reimann, Martin, Lauriola, Marco, Bechara, Antoine·2012·Frontiers in Neuroscience

Abstract

Affective neuroscience has helped guide research and theory development in judgment and decision-making by revealing the role of emotional processes in choice behavior, especially when risk is involved. Evidence is emerging that qualitatively and quantitatively different processes may be involved in risky decision-making for gains and losses. We start by reviewing behavioral work by Kahneman and Tversky (1979) and others, which shows that risk-taking differs for potential gains and potential losses. We then turn to the literature in decision neuroscience to support the gain versus loss distinction. Relying in part on data from a new task that separates risky decision-making for gains and losses, we test a neural model that assigns unique mechanisms for risky decision-making involving potential losses. Included are studies using patients with lesions to brain areas specified as important in the model and studies with healthy individuals whose brains are scanned to reveal activation in these and other areas during risky decision-making. In some cases, there is evidence that gains and losses are processed in different regions of the brain, while in other cases the same region appears to process risk in a different manner for gains and losses. At a more general level, we provide strong support for the notion that decisions involving risk-taking for gains and decisions involving risk-taking for losses represent different psychological processes. At a deeper level, we present mounting evidence that different neural structures play different roles in guiding risky choices in these different domains. Some structures are differentially activated by risky gains and risky losses while others respond uniquely in one domain or the other. Taken together, these studies support a clear functional dissociation between risk-taking for gains and risk-taking for losses, and further dissociation at the neural level.

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

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

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fnins.2012.00015

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 61 · Cited by 73

Authors
Levin, I. P., Xue, G., Weller, J. A., Reimann, M., Lauriola, M., & Bechara, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • Decision Research (US)
  • Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
Corresponding author
Bechara, Antoine
Venue
Frontiers in Neuroscience
Published
2012
Volume
6
Pages
15-15
ISSN
  • 1662-453X (ISSN-L)
  • 1662-4548
OpenAlex
W2098792342
Cited by
73
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
5.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Frontiers in Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion)
  • Scholars' Bank (University of Oregon) (submittedVersion)
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 › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Leadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
Keywords
risky decision making, brain lesions, brain activation, functional dissociation, affective neuroscience

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