ArticleSocial cognitive and affective neuroscience2020
Neurocognitive underpinnings of cross-cultural differences in risky decision making.
Article in Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Brain Signal for Secure EEG Biometric Authentication: A Comprehensive Survey.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Negative affectivity drivers of impulsivity in opioid use disorder.Nature reviews. Psychology · 2025Article
- Decision-making under stress: A psychological and neurobiological integrative model.Brain, behavior, & immunity - health · 2024Article
- Do incidental positive emotions induce more optimistic expectations of decision outcomes? An empirical study from the perspective of event-related potential.Brain and behavior · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Culture permeates across human mind and behavior. Cultural influence is reported even in economic decision making, which involves basic cognitive process, once believed to be invariant across all humans. The current study investigated the neurocognitive processes underlying economic decision making in East Asians and European Americans, with an aim to understand the cross-cultural differences in the discrete mental processes of decision making. Participants performed a risky gambling task that captures the gain maximizing and loss minimizing strategies, while electroencephalography was simultaneously collected. Event-related potentials (ERPs) associated with spontaneous emotional arousal (P2) and effortful attentional allocation (P3) were examined to determine the cultural effects on mental processes during pre-decisional and post-decisional stages. Behaviorally, Americans showed greater loss minimization than Asians. ERPs demonstrated significant cultural differences during post-decisional evaluation of outcomes, but not during pre-decisional processes. In Asians', ERP associated with emotional arousal (P2) was strongly modulated by gains, while in Americans', ERP associated with attentional allocation (P3) was strongly modulated by losses. These results suggest that Americans make conscious efforts to be self-reliant when facing financial losses, whereas Asians are more emotionally aroused by financial gains, which invites a refinement to the current theoretical propositions about cultural influence on decision making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.