Information Use Differences in Hot and Cold Risk Processing: When Does Information About Probability Count in the Columbia Card Task?

Abstract

Objective: This paper aims to provide insight into information processing differences between hot and cold risk taking decision tasks within a single domain. Decision theory defines risky situations using at least three parameters: outcome one (often a gain) with its probability and outcome two (often a loss) with a complementary probability. Although a rational agent should consider all of the parameters, s/he could potentially narrow their focus to only some of them, particularly when explicit Type 2 processes do not have the resources to override implicit Type 1 processes. Here we investigate differences in risky situation parameters' influence on hot and cold decisions. Although previous studies show lower information use in hot than in cold processes, they do not provide decision weight changes and therefore do not explain whether this difference results from worse concentration on each parameter of a risky situation (probability, gain amount, and loss amount) or from ignoring some parameters.Methods: Two studies were conducted, with participants performing the Columbia Card Task (CCT) in either its Cold or Hot version. In the first study, participants also performed the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) to monitor their ability to override Type 1 processing cues (implicit processes) with Type 2 explicit processes. Because hypothesis testing required comparison of the relative importance of risky situation decision weights (gain, loss, probability), we developed a novel way of measuring information use in the CCT by employing a conjoint analysis methodology.Results: Across the two studies, results indicated that in the CCT Cold condition decision makers concentrate on each information type (gain, loss, probability), but in the CCT Hot condition they concentrate mostly on a single parameter: probability of gain/loss. We also show that an individual's CRT score correlates with information use propensity in cold but not hot tasks. Thus, the affective dimension of hot tasks inhibits correct information processing, probably because it is difficult to engage Type 2 processes in such circumstances. Individuals' Type 2 processing abilities (measured by the CRT) assist greater use of information in cold tasks but do not help in hot tasks.

Event‐related potentials in response to feedback following risk‐taking in the hot version of the Columbia Card Task

“…Arguably, presenting people with (too) little negative feedback could cause them to take more risk. Tentative evidence for this conjecture is found in the large difference between risk levels found in studies using a rigged CCT (~23 cards [Figner et al, ], 27 cards [Markiewicz & Kubińska, ], and 21 cards [Penolazzi et al, ]) and studies in which the cards are truly shuffled (7.25 [8.48 uncensored] in the present study, and ~12 in Holper & Murphy, ).…”

Uncovering the structure of self-regulation through data-driven ontology discovery

“…Towards the right of the task dendrogram are two clusters that most strongly load on Strategic Information Processing. These clusters reflect decision-making strategies, which have been previously described by dichotomies like “cold” vs. “hot” (though these terms are normally related to risk-taking 35 ) or model-based vs. model-free 36 . There is also a working-memory (WM) component running through both clusters, with verbal WM tasks (digit span, keep track), associated with the model-based cluster, distinguished from the spatial span.…”

<p>Effects of Total and Partial Sleep Deprivation on Reflection Impulsivity and Risk-Taking in Deliberative Decision-Making</p>

“…Finally, similar to MT, another hypothetical interpretation of our pattern of results involves a sleep loss-induced impairment of WM, since CCTc typically requires deliberative elaboration implicating WM. 32 In this view, optimal WM function has been linked to both lower risk-taking behavior 81 and greater information use 31 in CCTc. Therefore, a WM dysfunction could explain the increase in risk propensity specifically showed by the sub-sample who approached more cautiously to the task.…”

“…17 The CCTc is a risk-taking task developed to assess predominantly deliberative decision-making processes, 31 mostly requiring a rule-based elaboration that involves working memory and mental calculation. 32 In the view of the well-known increment of risk propensity following sleep deprivation, 33,34 the choice of this task was aimed at evaluating the impact of an inadequate amount of sleep on decision-making strategies that do not engage affective components. 35 Most studies in sleep literature on decision-making have used protocols involving total sleep deprivation (TSD), since it represents a more systematic approach to evaluate the consequences of sleep loss on cognitive functions, allowing to effectively control for potential confounding factors in a laboratory setting.…”