Summary: New research suggests that psychological resilience may arise from the way the brain mathematically weighs costs against benefits. Rather than valuing rewards more intensely, resilient individuals appear to assign less importance to small losses — an “acceptance bias” that helps them tolerate mixed outcomes more readily.
This decision-making bias is linked to specific patterns of prefrontal cortex activity, which may help resilient people regulate their emotional responses to negative information and maintain more balanced choices under uncertainty.
Key Research Findings
- The Valuation Bias: In experiments comparing financial gains and losses, some participants consistently gave lower weight to negative consequences. This led those individuals to accept more offers that included both potential gains and modest losses.
- Not Driven by Reward-Seeking: The resilient group did not show an increased appetite for reward. Instead, their distinctive pattern was a reduced sensitivity to negative outcomes, not an inflated valuation of positives.
- Neural Signatures: Participants who discounted minor losses showed stronger increases in prefrontal cortex activation when confronted with potential losses, and comparatively reduced prefrontal responses to gains.
- Resilience Link: These neural response patterns statistically mediated the relationship between a positive acceptance bias in decision-making and higher self-reported psychological resilience.
- Cognitive Control Role: Researchers propose that amplified prefrontal engagement when processing negative information supports better regulation of thoughts and emotions about losses, allowing resilient people to keep setbacks in perspective.
Source: SfN
Whether weighing a purchase or evaluating a new relationship, people often show biases when weighing positives and negatives. This study sheds light on how those biases relate to resilience.
In a Journal of Neuroscience paper, Ulrike Basten and colleagues from RPTU University Kaiserslautern-Landau and the University of Amsterdam examined whether individual differences in processing benefits and costs correspond to psychological resilience.
The team tested 82 participants using a visual decision-making task in which different colored shapes signaled potential gains or losses. At the end of the experiment, outcomes translated into real monetary gains or costs. Although everyone received the same stimuli, some participants consistently undervalued small losses, and as a result they were more likely to accept mixed offers that combined possible gains and modest losses.
Basten explains this pattern succinctly: these individuals do not place greater value on rewards; they assign less value to negative consequences and therefore show a stronger tendency to accept options with mixed outcomes. The difference lies in how negative information is processed.
Neuroimaging results revealed that participants who down-weighted minor losses exhibited stronger increases in activity across several prefrontal and parietal regions when facing potential losses, while showing more pronounced decreases in activity, particularly in the right inferior frontal junction, when receiving gains. These neural response patterns statistically mediated the association between a positive decision bias and higher levels of trait acceptance, a component of self-reported resilience.
Cognitive and computational modeling further indicated that a positive choice bias reflects lower sensitivity to negative information relative to positive information. At the same time, higher valuation of positive information was linked with stronger neural responses to negative signals in regions such as the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) and the insula.
Finally, both choice bias and trait acceptance were related to functional connectivity patterns connecting prefrontal regions, midbrain structures, striatum, and ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Together, these findings suggest that enhanced activation of cognitive-control networks specifically in response to negative information supports regulatory processes that attenuate the impact of losses, promoting a positive choice bias that may bolster resilience.
Basten cautions that the study is correlational: it cannot establish causality. A logical next step would be experimental training designed to shift decision biases — for example, rewarding particular choices to encourage a more positive valuation pattern — to test whether such interventions can increase resilience.
Key Questions Answered:
A: Not exactly. Optimism typically refers to expecting better future outcomes. The study indicates resilience is more about valuation — downplaying the significance of potential negatives. In other words, resilience reflects a dampening of negative valuation rather than an exaggerated sense of positive outcomes.
A: The researchers are exploring that possibility. One avenue is “bias training,” which would reinforce certain decisions to cultivate a more positive valuation bias. Controlled trials would be needed to test whether such training improves resilience in a lasting way.
A: The prefrontal cortex serves as the brain’s executive center. Greater engagement of this region in response to negative information suggests it helps regulate and temper emotional reactions to losses, thereby preventing negative signals from disproportionately influencing decisions.
Editorial Notes:
- This article was edited by a Neuroscience News editor.
- The referenced journal paper was reviewed in full by the editorial team.
- Additional context and clarification were provided by staff editors.
About this neuroscience research news
Author: SfN Media
Source: SfN
Contact: SfN Media
Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News
Original Research: Closed access.
Title: Positive Bias in Value-Based Decision-Making: Neurocognitive Associations with Resilience — Rebecca A. Rammensee, Andrew Heathcote, and Ulrike Basten. Journal of Neuroscience.
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1734-25.2026
Abstract
Positive Bias in Value-Based Decision-Making: Neurocognitive Associations with Resilience
Biased processing of information is a hallmark of many mental health conditions. This study examines choice biases in value-based decisions and how these biases relate to psychological resilience through differences in cognitive and neural processing of reward and punishment signals.
In a cost–benefit integration task, 82 participants (41 female, 41 male) evaluated gains and losses associated with features (color, shape) of compound visual stimuli. A positive choice bias correlated with trait acceptance, a facet of self-reported resilience. This cross-sectional relationship was statistically mediated by neural differences measured with fMRI: participants with a more positive choice bias and higher trait acceptance showed stronger increases in neural activity to losses across several prefrontal and parietal regions and stronger decreases to gains in the right inferior frontal junction.
Computational modeling indicated that stronger positive choice biases reflected lower sensitivity to negative information relative to positive information. Interestingly, higher valuation of positive information was also associated with heightened neural responses to negative information in dACC and insula. Finally, choice bias and trait acceptance related to functional connectivity among prefrontal seeds, midbrain, striatum, and ventromedial prefrontal cortex.
Overall, the amplified activation of cognitive-control regions specifically for negative information suggests a regulatory mechanism that reduces the impact of losses, supporting a positive choice bias that may contribute to psychological resilience.