Losses as modulators of attention: review and analysis of the unique effects of losses over gains
- PMID: 22823738
- DOI: 10.1037/a0029383
Losses as modulators of attention: review and analysis of the unique effects of losses over gains
Abstract
It has been shown that in certain situations losses exert a stronger effect on behavior than respective gains, and this has been commonly explained by the argument that losses are given more weight in people's decisions than respective gains. However, although much is understood about the effect of losses on cognitive processes and behavior, 2 major inconsistencies remain. First, recent empirical evidence fails to demonstrate that people avoid incentive structures that carry equivalent gains and losses. Second, findings in experience-based decision tasks indicate that following losses, increased arousal is observed simultaneously with no behavioral loss aversion. To account for these findings, we developed an attention-allocation model as a comprehensive framework for the effect of losses. According to this model losses increase on-task attention, thereby enhancing the sensitivity to the reinforcement structure. In the current article we examine whether this model can account for a broad range of empirical phenomena involving losses. We show that as predicted by the attentional model, asymmetric effects of losses on behavior emerge where gains and losses are presented separately but not concurrently. Yet, even in the absence of loss aversion, losses have distinct effects on performance, arousal, frontal cortical activation, and behavioral consistency. The attentional model of losses thus explains some of the main inconsistencies in previous studies of the effect of losses.
© 2013 American Psychological Association
Similar articles
-
Loss-aversion or loss-attention: the impact of losses on cognitive performance.Cogn Psychol. 2013 Mar;66(2):212-31. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.12.001. Epub 2013 Jan 19. Cogn Psychol. 2013. PMID: 23334108 Clinical Trial.
-
Loss attention in a dual-task setting.Psychol Sci. 2014 Feb;25(2):494-502. doi: 10.1177/0956797613510725. Epub 2013 Dec 19. Psychol Sci. 2014. PMID: 24357614
-
[Risk-taking in adolescence: A neuroeconomics approach].Encephale. 2010 Apr;36(2):147-54. doi: 10.1016/j.encep.2009.06.004. Epub 2009 Sep 22. Encephale. 2010. PMID: 20434632 Review. French.
-
Comparing gains and losses.Psychol Sci. 2010 Oct;21(10):1438-45. doi: 10.1177/0956797610381504. Epub 2010 Aug 25. Psychol Sci. 2010. PMID: 20739673
-
Attention in preferential choice.Prog Brain Res. 2013;202:117-34. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-62604-2.00007-1. Prog Brain Res. 2013. PMID: 23317829 Review.
Cited by
-
Value Associations Modulate Visual Attention and Response Selection.Front Psychol. 2021 May 21;12:656185. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.656185. eCollection 2021. Front Psychol. 2021. PMID: 34093346 Free PMC article.
-
Negativity Bias in Media Multitasking: The Effects of Negative Social Media Messages on Attention to Television News Broadcasts.PLoS One. 2016 May 4;11(5):e0153712. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153712. eCollection 2016. PLoS One. 2016. PMID: 27144385 Free PMC article.
-
Decision-making deficits among maltreated children.Child Maltreat. 2013 Aug;18(3):184-94. doi: 10.1177/1077559512467846. Epub 2012 Dec 6. Child Maltreat. 2013. PMID: 23220788 Free PMC article.
-
Comparing the effects of positive and negative feedback in information-integration category learning.Mem Cognit. 2017 Jan;45(1):12-25. doi: 10.3758/s13421-016-0638-3. Mem Cognit. 2017. PMID: 27457097 Free PMC article.
-
Formalizing the fundamental Faustian bargain: Inefficacious decision-makers sacrifice their freedom of choice to coercive leaders for economic security.PLoS One. 2022 Sep 27;17(9):e0275265. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275265. eCollection 2022. PLoS One. 2022. PMID: 36166460 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources