Reward seeking and loss aversion: How effort, perception and monetary value influence the processing of reward and loss cues.

The study of decision-making has focused on variable aspects of the choosing process, along with its possible moderators, including, among others, rewards and losses, as individuals tend to make choices that maximise the former and minimise the latter. The former, often examined through reward processing, involving the detection, analysis and pursuit of rewards, is considered a hard-wired function of both the human and non-human brain with an evolutionary role. The latter, investigated through cognitive, economic and, more recently, neuroscientific lenses, is a significantly less well-understood moderator, with the behavioural economic view being the most thorough explanation for individuals’ avoidance of losses, termed loss aversion. Combining the existing evidence and the available literature, this thesis held two aims. First, to study reward processing by replicating one of the original experiments on which the theory of initial versus full reward processing was based on. According to this theory, reward processing is influenced by the reward amount, task requirements and stimulus presentation (i.e., whether a stimulus is consciously perceived or not). Second, to study loss aversion under the same microscope as reward processing in order to determine whether loss aversion is a unilateral phenomenon, or a concept influenced by several experimental manipulations, similarly to its antagonist, reward processing. We employed the tapping paradigm used in Bijleveld et al.’s (2012a) study, using the same stimuli and instructions for both experiments and a 2 (effort requirement: high versus low) × 2 (reward representation: supraliminal versus subliminal) × 2 (reward value: 1 versus 10 cents) within-subjects design. Both experiments were pre-registered in OSF and, after data collection, three-way analyses of variance were conducted to explore the data. Unfortunately, regarding the ‘reward’ experiment, the findings did not replicate; instead, we discovered that one of the parameters (i.e., Consciousness) had the opposite direction compared to that of Bijleveld et al. (2012a). Only the variable of task requirements (i.e., Effort) reached statistical significance and replicated the original authors’ results. The ‘loss’ experiment findings were almost identical to that of the ‘reward’ study; only Effort displayed a significant main effect, while Consciousness, although again significant, followed the same direction of its ‘reward’ counterpart. Methodological limitations are considered and future directions are suggested.