↓ Skip to main content

Financial Incentives Differentially Regulate Neural Processing of Positive and Negative Emotions during Value-Based Decision-Making

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Financial Incentives Differentially Regulate Neural Processing of Positive and Negative Emotions during Value-Based Decision-Making
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00058
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne M. Farrell, Joshua O. S. Goh, Brian J. White

Abstract

Emotional and economic incentives often conflict in decision environments. To make economically desirable decisions then, deliberative neural processes must be engaged to regulate automatic emotional reactions. In this functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study, we evaluated how fixed wage (FW) incentives and performance-based (PB) financial incentives, in which pay is proportional to outcome, differentially regulate positive and negative emotional reactions to hypothetical colleagues that conflicted with the economics of available alternatives. Neural activity from FW to PB incentive contexts decreased for positive emotional stimuli but increased for negative stimuli in middle temporal, insula, and medial prefrontal regions. In addition, PB incentives further induced greater responses to negative than positive emotional decisions in the frontal and anterior cingulate regions involved in emotion regulation. Greater response to positive than negative emotional features in these regions also correlated with lower frequencies of economically desirable choices. Our findings suggest that whereas positive emotion regulation involves a reduction of responses in valence representation regions, negative emotion regulation additionally engages brain regions for deliberative processing and signaling of incongruous events.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Researcher 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 11 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 28%
Neuroscience 6 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 13 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 February 2018.
All research outputs
#15,489,831
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,288
of 7,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#273,994
of 446,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#119
of 147 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,192 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 446,080 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 147 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.