Dude. I know you don’t specifically say anywhere in the article that this is “new” research but 15 year old information? Is that why you did not provide a link to the article you are referencing. And Lowenstein is a professor of psychology and behavioral “science”, he is not a neuroscientist. Ironically, that actually makes him more trustworthy though not by much. And this “pain” in the brain theory about spending money has about as much credible scientific evidence as aliens at Area 51. What it has is a shit ton of hyperbole, breathless repetition in the news media, and at technically dense dissertation in behavioral decision making and marketing from 1996 behind it. That dissertation seems to be at the heart of all these articles and news media accounts. And a quick tip for recognizing when someone is not really a research scientist. They say things like “We were so excited when we got the results…and saw that…a section of the brain associated with pain processing, activated when subjects saw prices that were too high,”and “It was an electric moment.” Real research scientists do not set up and conduct studies with an agenda and an expected outcome already planned in advance. This “study” which I still cannot find but would very much like to get a link for feels like it was staged to get the outcome it did. Of course the fact that it used brain scans to draw its conclusions already ready makes it highly suspect as I have written about many times. Just one example below.
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Has Emerged as the Gold Standard in Psychotherapy
At the Intersection of Psychology, Neuroscience, Brain Scans, and BS
In any event, real research scientists do not “get excited” when results meet their expectations because they do not have expectations. They are not emotionally invested in the outcomes as it is clear Professor Lowenstein is. This is a recipe for disaster and is how we end up with biased results that cannot be repeated or worse yet, outright fraud.