Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41118027›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2026

Do losses loom larger than gains during value-directed encoding?

Gizem Filiz, Henry Xiao, Ian G Dobbins

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Memory & cognition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Gizem FilizDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8252-2416
Henry XiaoDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Ian G DobbinsDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA. idobbins@wustl.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-9539-6199

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People tend to encode high-value information better than low-value information. This value-directed encoding effect (VDE) is usually studied in the context of future gains, whereas the impact of future losses is rarely studied. This is a notable gap because behavioral economics suggests that participants are highly motivated to avoid losses. Here, we compared the encoding of potential gains, losses, and neutral items in three recognition experiments. We also manipulated time constraints such that participants had 1 s (Experiment 1), unlimited encoding time (Experiment 2), or 3 s (Experiment 3) to encode the valued words. VDE effects were absent when participants were given only 1 s to encode in Experiment 1. When given unlimited encoding time in Experiment 2, Win words were later recognized more often than Loss words, which were recognized more often than Neutral words. Participants also spent longer encoding Win versus Loss words. In Experiment 3, when encoding was restricted to 3 s, Win and Loss words were similarly later recognized at rates higher than Neutral words. Thus, potential future losses do not loom larger than gains during encoding. However, both yield better encoding than Neutral items if participants are given more than 1 s to encode. Additionally, in all three experiments, memory for the prior value of Win and Loss items was robust, and analyses demonstrated that VDE recognition effects were unnecessary for robust memory of value.

Indexed as

Recognition, PsychologyAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultLoss aversionRecognition memoryThe recognition heuristicValue-directed encodingValue source memory

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.