32
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Enhanced Risk Aversion, But Not Loss Aversion, in Unmedicated Pathological Anxiety

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Anxiety disorders are associated with disruptions in both emotional processing and decision making. As a result, anxious individuals often make decisions that favor harm avoidance. However, this bias could be driven by enhanced aversion to uncertainty about the decision outcome (e.g., risk) or aversion to negative outcomes (e.g., loss). Distinguishing between these possibilities may provide a better cognitive understanding of anxiety disorders and hence inform treatment strategies.

          Methods

          To address this question, unmedicated individuals with pathological anxiety ( n = 25) and matched healthy control subjects ( n = 23) completed a gambling task featuring a decision between a gamble and a safe (certain) option on every trial. Choices on one type of gamble—involving weighing a potential win against a potential loss (mixed)—could be driven by both loss and risk aversion, whereas choices on the other type—featuring only wins (gain only)—were exclusively driven by risk aversion. By fitting a computational prospect theory model to participants’ choices, we were able to reliably estimate risk and loss aversion and their respective contribution to gambling decisions.

          Results

          Relative to healthy control subjects, pathologically anxious participants exhibited enhanced risk aversion but equivalent levels of loss aversion.

          Conclusions

          Individuals with pathological anxiety demonstrate clear avoidance biases in their decision making. These findings suggest that this may be driven by a reduced propensity to take risks rather than a stronger aversion to losses. This important clarification suggests that psychological interventions for anxiety should focus on reducing risk sensitivity rather than reducing sensitivity to negative outcomes per se.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty

          Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297-323
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The neural basis of loss aversion in decision-making under risk.

            People typically exhibit greater sensitivity to losses than to equivalent gains when making decisions. We investigated neural correlates of loss aversion while individuals decided whether to accept or reject gambles that offered a 50/50 chance of gaining or losing money. A broad set of areas (including midbrain dopaminergic regions and their targets) showed increasing activity as potential gains increased. Potential losses were represented by decreasing activity in several of these same gain-sensitive areas. Finally, individual differences in behavioral loss aversion were predicted by a measure of neural loss aversion in several regions, including the ventral striatum and prefrontal cortex.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Virtual reality exposure therapy for anxiety disorders: A meta-analysis.

              There is now a substantial literature investigating virtual reality exposure therapy (VRET) as a viable treatment option for anxiety disorders. In this meta-analysis we provide effect size estimates for virtual reality treatment in comparison to in vivo exposure and control conditions (waitlist, attention control, etc.). A comprehensive search of the literature identified 13 studies (n=397) that were included in the final analyses. Consistent with prediction the primary random effects analysis showed a large mean effect size for VRET compared to control conditions, Cohen's d=1.11 (S.E.=0.15, 95% CI: 0.82-1.39). This finding was consistent across secondary outcome categories as well (domain-specific, general subjective distress, cognition, behavior, and psychophysiology). Also as expected in vivo treatment was not significantly more effective than VRET. In fact, there was a small effect size favoring VRET over in vivo conditions, Cohen's d=0.35 (S.E.=0.15, 95% CI: 0.05-0.65). There was a trend for a dose-response relationship with more VRET sessions showing larger effects (p=0.06). Outcome was not related to publication year or sample size. Implications are discussed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Biol Psychiatry
                Biol. Psychiatry
                Biological Psychiatry
                Elsevier
                0006-3223
                1873-2402
                15 June 2017
                15 June 2017
                : 81
                : 12
                : 1014-1022
                Affiliations
                [a ]Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, United Kingdom
                [b ]Affective Brain Lab, Department of Experimental Psychology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
                Author notes
                [* ]Address correspondence to: Caroline J. Charpentier, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17 Queen Square, London WC1N 3AR, UK; .Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17 Queen SquareLondonWC1N 3ARUK caroline.charpentier1@ 123456gmail.com
                [1]

                JPR and OJR contributed equally to this work.

                Article
                S0006-3223(16)33111-0
                10.1016/j.biopsych.2016.12.010
                5466268
                28126210
                30fbf755-ac07-48f9-860a-de638f576133
                © 2017 Society of Biological Psychiatry. All rights reserved.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 31 August 2016
                : 17 November 2016
                : 3 December 2016
                Categories
                Archival Report

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                anxiety,decision making,emotion,loss aversion,memory,risk aversion
                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                anxiety, decision making, emotion, loss aversion, memory, risk aversion

                Comments

                Comment on this article