Do losses loom larger for children than adults?

Abstract

The large impact of loss of reward on behavior has been well documented in adult populations. However, whether responsiveness to loss relative to gain is similarly elevated in child versus adult populations remains unclear. It is also unclear whether relations between incentive behaviors and self-reported reward/punishment sensitivity are similar within different developmental stages. To investigate these questions, 7–10-year-old children (N=70) and young adults (N=70) completed the Behavioral Inhibition System/Behavioral Activation System (BIS/BAS) Scale, along with two probabilistic incentive tasks assessing gain approach and loss avoidance behavior. BIS/BAS subscales were calculated per Pagliaccio, Luking et al. 2015, which established an age invariant model of the BIS/BAS. Bias towards responses more frequently followed by gain feedback and away from responses more frequently followed by loss feedback, approach and avoidance behavior respectively, were quantified via signal detection statistics. Gain approach behavior did not differ across age groups, however children exhibited significantly elevated loss avoidance relative to adults. Children also showed greater reductions in accuracy and slower reaction times specifically following loss feedback relative to adults. Interestingly, despite age group differences in loss avoidance behavior, relations between self-report measures and approach/avoidance behaviors were similar across age groups. Participants reporting elevated motivation (BAS Drive) showed both elevated gain approach and elevated loss avoidance, with both types of behavior predicting unique variance in BAS Drive. Results highlight the often-neglected developmental and motivational roles of responsiveness to loss of reward.

Neural processes of reward and punishment processing in childhood and adolescence: An event-related potential study on age differences

“…Considering the “adolescent triadic model of motivated behavior”, our results support the notion that adolescence is a phase characterized by a greater dominance of the reward compared to the harm-avoidant system ( Ernst et al, 2006 ). Moreover, our findings are corroborated by imaging and behavioral studies demonstrating a lower sensitivity to punishment and negative feedback stimuli in adolescence (e.g., Humphreys et al, 2016 ; Luking et al, 2016 ; van den Bos et al, 2012 ). Similar to our findings, a longitudinal study demonstrated a higher fP3 amplitude after punishment (vs. rewards) in children, which the authors interpreted as greater neural sensitivity to punishment in this age group ( Harms et al, 2014 ).…”

“…In regard of the BAS scales, we focused only on the BAS drive scale to restrict further the number of analyses. This decision was built on the rationale that previous research in developmental samples (1) links between the BAS drive scale and incentive processing ( Luking et al, 2016 ), and (2) better psychometric properties for the BAS drive scale based on confirmatory factor analyses ( Pagliaccio et al, 2016 ; Vervoort et al, 2019 ) and results on internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha of BAS drive = .86, BAS fun = .57, BAS reward = .72, Vervoort et al, 2019 ).…”

Factors Affecting Consumer Food Preferences: Food Taste and Depression-Based Evoked Emotional Expressions with the Use of Face Reading Technology

“…Only one investigation has directly tested the relationship between DD and food reward using behavioural paradigms [32]. Using a modified probabilistic incentive-learning task in which children were rewarded with candy (Skittles or M&Ms), depressive symptoms were found to be unrelated to response bias in food reward [33]. These findings complement results from sugar taste tests in which depressed and nondepressed adults responded similarly in terms of pleasure ratings for increasingly sweeter sucrose solutions [34–36].…”

Positive-blank versus negative-blank feedback learning in children and adults

“…This might be the reason why valence is often implemented between subjects in the developmental literature. In contrast to the former adult studies, this literature consistently indicates that children perform better during learning in negative-blank as compared with positive-blank conditions ( Barringer & Gholson, 1979 ; Curry, 1960 ; Meyer & Offenbach, 1962 ; Meyer & Seidman, 1960 , 1961 ; Penney, 1967 ; Penney & Lupton, 1961 ; Ratliff & Tindall, 1970 ; Spence, 1966b ; Tindall & Ratliff, 1974 ; see also Luking, Pagliaccio, Luby, & Barch, 2016 ). With respect to the end result of learning, three studies reported that learned materials were better maintained during extinction if they had been learned in negative-blank as compared with positive-blank conditions ( Meyer & Seidman, 1960 , 1961 ; Ratliff & Tindall, 1970 ), whereas other studies did not report end result data.…”