A cultural study on decision making: Performance differences on the Iowa Gambling Task between selected groups of Brazilians and Americans.

Bakos, Daniela Schneider; Denburg, Natalie L.; Fonseca, Róchele Paz; Parente, Maria Alice de Mattos Pimenta

doi:10.3922/j.psns.2010.1.013

Cited by 33 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Inconsistent with the IGT assumptions, frequencies of immediate reward and punishment rather than the inter-temporal nature of choices were determinants of IGT decision making in Taiwan (Chiu and Lin, 2007, Lin et al, 2007; Chiu et al, 2008), Iran (Ekhtiari et al, 2009), and Brazil (Bakos et al, 2010). While it is assumed that risk is perceived in terms of inter-temporality and risky decision making is manifested in the tradeoff between an immediate versus a delayed outcome (irrespective of reward or punishment as an outcome) in the IGT, socio-economic, and cultural differences in the IGT suggest an alternative definition of risk and risky decision making in the IGT.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision Making in the Reward and Punishment Variants of the Iowa Gambling Task: Evidence of “Foresight” or “Framing”?

Singh¹,

Khan²

2012

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surface-level differences in the reward and punishment variants, specifically greater long-term decision making in the punishment variant of the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) observed in previous studies led to the present comparison of long-term decision making in the two IGT variants (n = 320, male = 160). It was contended that risk aversion triggered by a positive frame of the reward variant and risk seeking triggered by a negative frame of the punishment variant appears as long-term decision making in the two IGT variants. Apart from the frame of the variant as a within-subjects factor (variant type: reward and punishment), the order in which the frame was triggered (order type: reward–punishment or punishment–reward), and the four types of instructions that delineated motivation toward reward from that of punishment (reward, punishment, reward and punishment, and no-hint) were hypothesized to have an effect on foresighted decision making in the IGT. As expected, long-term decision making differed across the two IGT variants suggesting that the frame of the variant has an effect on long-term decision making in the IGT (p < 0.001). The order in which a variant was presented, and the type of the instructions that were used both had an effect on long-term decision making in the two IGT variants (p < 0.05). A post hoc test suggested that the instructions that differentiated between reward and punishment resulted in greater foresight than the commonly used IGT instructions that fail to distinguish between reward and punishment. As observed in previous studies, there were more number of participants (60%) who showed greater foresight in the punishment variant than in the reward variant (p < 0.001). The results suggest that foresight in IGT decision making is sensitive to reward and punishment frame in an asymmetric manner, an observation that is aligned with the behavioral decision making framework. Benefits of integrating findings from behavioral studies in decision neuroscience are discussed, and a need to investigate cultural differences in the IGT studies is pointed out.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision Making in the Reward and Punishment Variants of the Iowa Gambling Task: Evidence of “Foresight” or “Framing”?

Singh¹,

Khan²

2012

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nos trabalhos subsequentes Bechara & Damasio, 2002), o valor 10 é adotado como ponto de corte, por ser a pontuação máxima alcançada pelos pacientes com lesões orbitofrontais (Bechara et al, 2001;Verdejo-Garcia, Aguilar de Arcos, & Pérez-Garcia, 2004). Posteriormente, foi definido como desempenho desvantajoso uma pontuação inferior ou igual a -18, como desempenho limítrofe uma pontuação entre -17 e 17, e como desempenho vantajoso uma pontuação superior ou igual a 18 (Bakos, Denburg, Fonseca, & Parente, 2010).…”

Section: Avaliação De Desempenho No Igtunclassified

O Iowa Gambling Task: uma revisão crítica

Areias

Paixão

Figueira

2013

Psic.: Teor. e Pesq.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMO -O Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) é uma tarefa amplamente utilizada na avaliação da capacidade de tomada de decisão. Neste artigo, procede-se à revisão da literatura, comparando-se as versões do IGT, as diferentes medidas de avaliação do desempenho e as alterações introduzidas nos procedimentos, nomeadamente no feedback, na aleatorização espacial dos baralhos, no número de ensaios e de cartas por baralho, nas instruções, na remuneração e na manipulação das recompensas e punições. Desta análise, conclui-se que as diversas versões da tarefa, as alterações nos procedimentos de aplicação e as diferentes medidas utilizadas na avaliação têm impacto no desempenho, prejudicam a comparação entre estudos e as generalizações dos resultados. Finalmente, apresentam-se sugestões para uma maior adequação dos procedimentos. Palavras-chave: Iowa Gambling Task, tomada de decisão, feedback, recompensas, puniçõesThe Iowa Gambling Task: A Critical Revision ABSTRACT -The Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) is a widely used task in the assessment of the decision-making ability. In this article, we conduct a literature review by comparing IGT versions, different performance assessment measures, and changes to procedures including feedback, spatial randomization of decks, number of trials, number of cards per deck, instructions, payment, and rewards and punishments. On basis of this analysis, we conclude that different versions of the task, changes in application procedures and different measures used to assess the task have an impact on performance, thereby affecting comparison among studies and generalization of results. Finally, we offer suggestions to define adequate procedures.

show abstract

“…Could the conceptualization of risk and rationality advanced by the SMH–IGT framework—that is, risk as an intertemporal choice and rationality as making long term advantageous decisions—be a reflection of the environment where the task was developed and the cognitive demands of that environment? Decision making in the IGT is observed to be governed by frequency of reinforcement rather than the intertemporal attribute in several cultural contexts including Taiwan (Chiu and Lin, 2007; Lin et al, 2007; Chiu et al, 2008), Iran (Ekhtiari et al, 2009), Brazil (Schneider et al, 2010), and India (Singh and Khan, 2008). Future studies could utilize the IGT to understand cultural variations in risk perception and risk taking at the behavioral as well as the neural level.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dual conception of risk in the Iowa Gambling Task: effects of sleep deprivation and test-retest gap

Singh

2013

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Risk in the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) is often understood in terms of intertemporal choices, i.e., preference for immediate outcomes in favor of delayed outcomes is considered risky decision making. According to behavioral economics, healthy decision makers are expected to refrain from choosing the short-sighted immediate gain because, over time (10 trials of the IGT), the immediate gains result in a long term loss (net loss). Instead decision makers are expected to maximize their gains by choosing options that, over time (10 trials), result in delayed or long term gains (net gain). However, task choices are sometimes made on the basis of the frequency of reward and punishment such that frequent rewards/infrequent punishments are favored over infrequent rewards/frequent punishments. The presence of these two attributes (intertemporality and frequency of reward) in IGT decision making may correspond to the emotion-cognition dichotomy and reflect a dual conception of risk. Decision making on the basis of the two attributes was tested under two conditions: delay in retest and sleep deprivation. An interaction between sleep deprivation and time delay was expected to attenuate the difference between the two attributes. Participants were 40 male university students. Analysis of the effects of IGT attribute type (intertemporal vs. frequency of reinforcement), sleep deprivation (sleep deprivation vs. no sleep deprivation), and test-retest gap (short vs. long delay) showed a significant within-subjects effect of IGT attribute type thus confirming the difference between the two attributes. Sleep deprivation had no effect on the attributes, but test-retest gap and the three-way interaction between attribute type, test-retest gap, and sleep deprivation were significantly different. Post-hoc tests revealed that sleep deprivation and short test-retest gap attenuated the difference between the two attributes. Furthermore, the results showed an expected trend of increase in intertemporal decision making at retest suggesting that intertemporal decision making benefited from repeated task exposure. The present findings add to understanding of the emotion-cognition dichotomy. Further, they show an important time-dependent effect of a universally experienced constraint (sleep deprivation) on decision making. It is concluded that risky decision making in the IGT is contingent on the attribute under consideration and is affected by factors such as time elapsed and constraint experienced before the retest.

show abstract

A cultural study on decision making: Performance differences on the Iowa Gambling Task between selected groups of Brazilians and Americans.

Cited by 33 publications

References 48 publications

Decision Making in the Reward and Punishment Variants of the Iowa Gambling Task: Evidence of “Foresight” or “Framing”?

Decision Making in the Reward and Punishment Variants of the Iowa Gambling Task: Evidence of “Foresight” or “Framing”?

O Iowa Gambling Task: uma revisão crítica

Dual conception of risk in the Iowa Gambling Task: effects of sleep deprivation and test-retest gap

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About