4.7 Article

Real and hypothetical monetary rewards modulate risk taking in the brain

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep29520

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Program for Professors of Special Appointment (Eastern Scholar) at Shanghai Institutions of Higher Learning [TP2015031, TP2016020]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31070984, 31400872, 31271190, 81200962]
  3. Guangdong Natural Science Foundation [2015A03031 3631]
  4. New Century Excellent Talents in University [NCET-13-0685]
  5. National Institutes of Health [R01 HL102119, R21 DA032022]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Both real and hypothetical monetary rewards are widely used as reinforcers in risk taking and decision making studies. However, whether real and hypothetical monetary rewards modulate risk taking and decision making in the same manner remains controversial. In this study, we used event-related potentials (ERP) with a balloon analogue risk task (BART) paradigm to examine the effects of real and hypothetical monetary rewards on risk taking in the brain. Behavioral data showed reduced risk taking after negative feedback (money loss) during the BART with real rewards compared to those with hypothetical rewards, suggesting increased loss aversion with real monetary rewards. The ERP data demonstrated a larger feedback-related negativity (FRN) in response to money loss during risk taking with real rewards compared to those with hypothetical rewards, which may reflect greater prediction error or regret emotion after real monetary losses. These findings demonstrate differential effects of real versus hypothetical monetary rewards on risk taking behavior and brain activity, suggesting a caution when drawing conclusions about real choices from hypothetical studies of intended behavior, especially when large rewards are used. The results have implications for future utility of real and hypothetical monetary rewards in studies of risk taking and decision making.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available