Mirrored Prominent Deck B Phenomenon: Frequent Small Losses Override Infrequent Large Gains in the Inverted Iowa Gambling Task

Abstract

Since Bechara et al. pioneered its development, the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) has been widely applied to elucidate decision behavior and medial prefrontal function. Although most decision makers can hunch the final benefits of IGT, ventromedial prefrontal lesions generate a myopic choice pattern. Additionally, the Iowa group developed a revised IGT (inverted IGT, iIGT) to confirm the IGT validity. Each iIGT trial was generated from the trial of IGT by multiplying by a “−” to create an inverted monetary value. Thus, bad decks A and B in the IGT become good decks iA and iB in the iIGT; additionally, good decks C and D in the IGT become bad decks iC and iD in the iIGT. Furthermore, IGT possessed mostly the gain trials, and iIGT possessed mainly the loss trials. Therefore, IGT is a frequent-gain–based task, and iIGT is a frequent-loss–based task. However, a growing number of IGT-related studies have identified confounding factors in IGT (i.e., gain-loss frequency), which are demonstrated by the prominent deck B phenomenon (PDB phenomenon). Nevertheless, the mirrored PDB phenomenon and guiding power of gain-loss frequency in iIGT have seldom been reexamined. This experimental finding supports the prediction based on gain-loss frequency. This study identifies the mirrored PDB phenomenon. Frequent small losses override occasional large gains in deck iB of the iIGT. Learning curve analysis generally supports the phenomenon based on gain-loss frequency rather than final outcome. In terms of iIGT and simple versions of iIGT, results of this study demonstrate that high-frequency loss, rather than a satisfactory final outcome, dominates the preference of normal decision makers under uncertainty. Furthermore, normal subjects prefer “no immediate punishment” rather than “final reward” under uncertainty.

Decision-Making by Patients With Methamphetamine Use Disorder Receiving Contingency Management Treatment: Magnitude and Frequency Effects

“…Decision-making among healthy samples is also influenced by the frequency with which rewards and losses are presented (10,11). In this study, healthy controls did not differ from full responders or partial responders in the frequency effect, but full responders appeared to favor frequent rewards and avoided frequent losses more often than partial responders.…”

“…T h i s fi n d i n g i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h i n methamphetamine-dependent samples [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV)] in particular Gonzalez et al (5) and van der Plas et al (2). The IGT has been used predominately to assess the influence of the immediacy and magnitude of rewards (and losses) on decision-making, but it has also been used to investigate the impact of the frequency with which rewards and losses are presented (10,11). Chiu et al (12) found that healthy individuals demonstrate a tendency to seek out gains that occur more frequently rather than exclusively seeking out longterm gains, as initially proposed by Bechara et al (13).…”

Daytime Sleepiness Is Associated With Reduced Integration of Temporally Distant Outcomes on the Iowa Gambling Task

“…Notably, recent evidence suggests that healthy participants consider other factors in addition to long-term gains when making decisions on the IGT (Horstmann, Villringer, & Neumann, 2012). For instance, healthy individuals often show a "prominent deck B" phenomenon, where "bad" deck B is selected much more frequently than "bad" deck A, at times reaching levels comparable to deck D (Lin, Song, Lin, & Chiu, 2012). Similarly, there is a "shrunken deck C" phenomenon, where deck D is preferred to deck C even though they have identical long-term outcomes (Chiu & Lin, 2007).…”

Restrictive and dynamic conceptions of the unconscious: Perspectives from moral and developmental psychology

“…However, IGT studies often do not allow for a test of this claim, as choices for specific options are generally not reported. The few studies that did include an analysis of specific options support a different conclusion (e.g., Duijvenvoorde et al 2010;Horstmann et al 2012;Lin et al 2012). That is, decision makers generally prefer options with low probability of losses (B & D), and some, but certainly not all, decision makers gradually develop a preference of D (low losses, low gains) over B (high losses, high gains) (Huizenga et al 2007).…”