They also comment on the fact that it didn't matter much whether the pay was tied to the performance of a given teacher or to the team to which that teacher was assigned. They state that "a merit pay regime need not pit teachers in a given school against each other to get results". Science Daily specifically covers the Fryer study stating that the study showed that "students gained as much as a 10 percentile increase in their scores compared to students with similar backgrounds -- if their teacher received a bonus at the beginning of the year, with conditions attached.
Thomas Amadio, superintendent of Chicago Heights Elementary School District , where the experiment was conducted, is quoted in this article stating "the study shows the value of merit pay as an encouragement for better teacher performance". Education weekly also weighs in and discusses utilizing loss aversion within education, specifically merit pay. The article states there are "few noteworthy limitations to the study, particularly relative to scope and sample size; further, the outcome measure was a 'low-stakes' diagnostic assessment, not the state test—it's unclear if findings would look the same if the test was used for accountability purposes.
Still Fryer et al. He stated "It's a deeply ingrained behavioral trait. The only prior field study of a "loss aversion" payment plan, they said, "occurred in Nanjing, China, where it improved productivity among factory workers who made and inspected DVD players and other consumer electronics". The article also covers a reaction by Barnett Berry , president of the Center for Teaching Quality, who stated "the study seems to suggest that districts pay 'teachers working with children and adolescents' in the same way 'Chinese factory workers' were paid for 'producing widgets'.
I think this suggests a dire lack of understanding of the complexities of teaching. There has also been other criticism of the notion of loss aversion as an explanation of greater effects. Indeed, all of the noted findings in education can be explained simply by the additional attention to a task when it includes losses i. Larry Ferlazzo in his blog questioned what kind of positive classroom culture a "loss aversion" strategy would create with students, and what kind of effect a similar plan with teachers would have on school culture.
He states that "the usual kind of teacher merit pay is bad enough, but a threatened 'take-away' strategy might even be more offensive". In earlier studies, both bidirectional mesolimbic responses of activation for gains and deactivation for losses or vica versa and gain or loss-specific responses have been seen.
While reward anticipation is associated with ventral striatum activation,   negative outcome anticipation engages the amygdala. However, only some studies have shown involvement of amygdala  during negative outcome anticipation but not others  which has led to some inconsistencies. It has later been proven that inconsistencies may only have been due to methodological issues including the utilisation of different tasks and stimuli, coupled with ranges of potential gains or losses sampled from either payoff matrices rather than parametric designs, and most of the data are reported in groups, therefore ignoring the variability amongst individuals.
Thus later studies  rather than focusing on subjects in groups, focus more on individual differences in the neural bases by jointly looking at behavioural analyses and neuroimaging. Neuroimaging studies on loss aversion involves measuring brain activity with functional magnetic resonance imaging fMRI to investigate whether individual variability in loss aversion were reflected in differences in brain activity through bidirectional or gain or loss specific responses, as well as multivariate source-based morphometry  SBM to investigate a structural network of loss aversion and univariate voxel-based morphometry VBM to identify specific functional regions within this network.
Brain activity in a right ventral striatum cluster increases particularly when anticipating gains. This involves the ventral caudate nucleus , pallidum , putamen , bilateral orbitofrontal cortex , superior frontal and middle gyri , posterior cingulate cortex , dorsal anterior cingulate cortex , and parts of the dorsomedial thalamus connecting to temporal and prefrontal cortex.
There is a significant correlation between degree of loss aversion and strength of activity in both the frontomedial cortex and the ventral striatum.
Decision making lessons
This is shown by the slope of brain activity deactivation for increasing losses being significantly greater than the slope of activation for increasing gains in the appetitive system involving the ventral striatum in the network of reward-based behavioural learning. On the other hand, when anticipating loss, the central and basal nuclei of amygdala, right posterior insula extending into the supramarginal gyrus mediate the output to other structures involved in the expression of fear and anxiety, such as the right parietal operculum and supramarginal gyrus.
Consistent with gain anticipation, the slope of the activation for increasing losses was significantly greater than the slope of the deactivation for increasing gains. Multiple neural mechanisms are recruited while making choices, showing functional and structural individual variability. Biased anticipation of negative outcomes leading to loss aversion involves specific somatosensory and limbic structures.
Its limbic component involved the amygdala associated with negative emotion and plays a role in the expression of fear and putamen in the right hemisphere. The somatosensory component included the middle cingulate cortex , as well as the posterior insula and rolandic operculum bilaterally.
The latter cluster partially overlaps with the right hemispheric one displaying the loss-oriented bidirectional response previously described, but, unlike that region, it mostly involved the posterior insula bilaterally. All these structures play a critical role in detecting threats and prepare the organism for appropriate action, with the connections between amygdala nuclei and the striatum controlling the avoidance of aversive events. There are functional differences between the right and left amygdala.
Overall, the role of amygdala in loss anticipation suggested that loss aversion may reflect a Pavlovian conditioned approach-avoidance response. Hence, there is a direct link between individual differences in the structural properties of this network and the actual consequences of its associated behavioral defense responses.
The neural activity involved in the processing of aversive experience and stimuli is not just a result of a temporary fearful overreaction prompted by choice-related information, but rather a stable component  of one's own preference function, reflecting a specific pattern of neural activity encoded in the functional and structural construction of a limbic-somatosensory neural system anticipating heightened aversive state of the brain. Even when no choice is required, individual differences in the intrinsic responsiveness of this interoceptive system reflect the impact of anticipated negative effects on evaluative processes, leading preference for avoiding losses rather than acquiring greater but riskier gains.
Individual differences in loss aversion are related to variables such as age,  gender, and genetic factors  affecting thalamic norepinephrine transmission, as well as neural structure and activities. Outcome anticipation and ensuing loss aversion involve multiple neural systems, showing functional and structural individual variability directly related to the actual outcomes of choices. In a study, adolescents and adults are found to be similarly loss-averse on behavioural level but they demonstrated different underlying neural responses to the process of rejecting gambles.
Although adolescents rejected the same proportion of trials as adults, adolescents displayed greater caudate and frontal pole activation than adults to achieve this. These findings suggest a difference in neural development during the avoidance of risk. It is possible that adding affectively arousing factors e. On the other hand, although men and women did not differ on their behavioural task performance, men showed greater neural activation than women in various areas during the task.
Loss of striatal dopamine neurons is associated with reduced risk-taking behaviour. Acute administration of D2 dopamine agonists may cause an increase in risky choices in humans. This suggests dopamine acting on stratum and possibly other mesolimbic structures can modulate loss aversion by reducing loss prediction signalling. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. Schneider, and Gary J. Journal of Services Marketing.
Journal of Political Economy.
Is loss-aversion magnitude-dependent? Measuring prospective affective judgments regarding gains and losses. Judgment and Decision Making , 12 1 , American Economic Review. Journal of Consumer Psychology. Psychological Bulletin.
Loose: Every decision has a consequence.
Cognitive Psychology. Psychological Science. G; Schweitzer, M. E Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. R Boundary conditions for the approach and avoidance effects of losses". Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. Journal of Consumer Research. A; Brand, M. J; Hoeke, S. C Journal of Advertising. Freakonomics column.
“Every decision has a consequence.”
New York Times. Retrieved Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. Archived from the original on December 1, A new study says yes". Washington Post. Science Daily. Aug 8, Winkler August 2, Education weekly. Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on December 29, Malloy et al.