4.5 Article

Behavioral and neural correlates of loss aversion and risk avoidance in adolescents and adults

Journal

DEVELOPMENTAL COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 3, Issue -, Pages 72-83

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dcn.2012.09.007

Keywords

Loss aversion; Risk; Decision-making; Adolescence; Development; fMRI

Funding

  1. UCLA Pre-Doctoral Training Program in the Translational Neuroscience of Drug Abuse
  2. Rubicon grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Individuals are frequently faced with risky decisions involving the potential for both gain and loss. Exploring the role of both potential gains and potential losses in predicting risk taking is critical to understanding how adolescents and adults make the choice to engage in or avoid a real-life risk. This study aimed to examine the impact of potential losses as well as gains on adolescent decisions during risky choice in a laboratory task. Adolescent (n=18) and adult (n=16) participants underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) during a mixed gambles task, and completed questionnaires measuring real-world risk-taking behaviors. While potential loss had a significantly greater effect on choice than potential gain in both adolescents and adults and there were no behavioral group differences on the task, adolescents recruited significantly more frontostriatal circuitry than adults when choosing to reject a gamble. During risk-seeking behavior, adolescent activation in medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) was negatively correlated with self-reported likelihood of risk taking. During risk-avoidant behavior, mPFC activation of in adults was negatively correlated with self-reported benefits of risk-taking. Taken together, these findings reflect different neural patterns during risk-taking and risk-avoidant behaviors in adolescents and adults. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available