Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37040019›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2023

Loss aversion in the control of attention.

Sunghyun Kim, Melissa R Beck, Yang Seok Cho

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sunghyun KimSchool of Psychology, Korea University, 145 Anam-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 02841, Korea. sunghyunk58@gmail.com.
Melissa R BeckDepartment of Psychology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.
Yang Seok ChoSchool of Psychology, Korea University, 145 Anam-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 02841, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Loss aversion is a psychological bias where an increase in loss is perceived as being larger than an equivalent increase in gain. In the present study, two experiments were conducted to explore whether attentional control reflects loss aversion. Participants performed a visual search task. On each trial, a red target and a green target were presented simultaneously, and participants were free to search for either one. Participants always gained points when they searched for a gain color target (e.g., red). However, they gained or lost points when they searched for a gain-loss color target (e.g., green). In Experiment 1, the expected values of the gain color and the gain-loss color were equal. Therefore, for maximizing the reward, participants did not need to preferably search for a particular color. However, results showed that participants searched for the gain color target more than the gain-loss color target, suggesting stronger attentional control for the gain color than the gain-loss color. In Experiment 2, even though the expected value of the gain-loss color was greater than that of the gain color, attention was allocated to the gain color more than to the gain-loss color. The results imply that attentional control can operate in accordance with the loss aversion principle when the boundary conditions for loss aversion in a repeated binary decision-making task were met.

Indexed as

AttentionRewardAffectColor PerceptionHumansReaction TimeAttentional controlLoss aversionProspect theory

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.