In studying naturalistic human decision-making, it is important to understand how emotional states shape decision-making processes and outcomes. Emotion regulation techniques can improve the quality of decisions, but there are several challenges to evaluating these techniques in a controlled research context. Determining the effectiveness of emotion regulation techniques requires methodology that can: 1) reliably elicit desired emotions in decision-makers; 2) include decision tasks with response measures that are sensitive to emotional loading; and 3) support repeated exposures/trials with relatively-consistent emotional loading and response sensitivity. The current study investigates one common method, the Balloon Analog Risk Task (BART), for its consistency and reliability in measuring the risk-propensity of decision-makers, and specifically how the method’s effectiveness might change over the course of repeated exposures. With the PANASX subjective assessment serving for comparison, results suggest the BART assessment method, when applied over repeated exposures, is reduced in its sensitivity to emotional stimuli and exhibits decision task-related learning effects which influence the observed trends in response data in complex ways. This work is valuable for researchers in decision-making and to guide design for humans with consideration for their affective states.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.