necessarily reflect those of the journal. Abstract Studies in the field of psychology often employ (computerized) behavioral tasks, aimed at mimicking real-world situations that elicit certain actions in participants. Such tasks are for example used to study risk propensity, a trait-like tendency towards taking or avoiding risk. One of the most popular tasks for gauging risk propensity is the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART; Lejuez et al., 2002), which has been shown to relate well to self-reported risk-taking and to real-world risk behaviors. However, despite its popularity and qualities, the BART has several methodological shortcomings, most of which have been reported before, but none of which are widely known. In the present paper, four such problems are explained and elaborated on: a lack of clarity as to whether decisions are characterized by uncertainty or risk; censoring of observations; confounding of risk and expected value; and poor decomposability into adaptive and maladaptive risk behavior. Furthermore, for every problem, a range of possible solutions is discussed, which overall can be divided into three categories: using a different, more informative outcome index than the standard average pump score; modifying one or more task elements; or using a different task, either an alternative risk-taking task (sequential or otherwise), or a custom-made instrument. It is important to make use of these solutions, as applying the BART without accounting for its shortcomings may lead to interpretational problems, including false-positive and falsenegative results. Depending on the research aims of a given study, certain shortcomings are more pressing than others, indicating the (type of) solutions most needed. By combining solutions and openly discussing shortcomings, researchers may be able to modify the BART in such a way that it can operationalize risk propensity without substantial methodological problems.
必须反映那些期刊。心理学领域的研究经常采用(计算机化的)行为任务，旨在模仿现实世界的情况，引发参与者的某些行为。例如，这些任务用于研究风险倾向，即承担或避免风险的倾向。衡量风险倾向的最流行的任务之一是气球模拟风险任务(BART;Lejuez et al.， 2002)，这已被证明与自我报告的冒险行为和现实世界的风险行为有很好的关系。然而，尽管BART广受欢迎，质量也很好，但它在方法上有几个缺点，其中大部分都是以前报道过的，但没有一个是广为人知的。在本文中，解释和阐述了四个这样的问题:决策是否具有不确定性或风险的特征缺乏明确性;对观察结果的审查;风险与期望值的混淆;可分解性差，可分解为适应性和非适应性风险行为。此外，对于每个问题，讨论了一系列可能的解决方案，总体上可分为三类:使用不同的、比标准平均泵评分更有信息量的结果指标;修改一个或多个任务元素;或者使用不同的任务，要么是另一项冒险任务(顺序或其他)，要么是定制的工具。重要的是要利用这些解决方案，因为应用BART而不考虑其缺点可能导致解释问题，包括假阳性和假阴性结果。根据特定研究的研究目的，某些缺点比其他缺点更紧迫，这表明最需要的解决方案(类型)。通过结合解决方案并公开讨论缺点，研究人员可能能够以这样一种方式修改BART，使其能够在没有实质性方法问题的情况下操作风险倾向。
{"title":"Erratum: Burst Beliefs – Methodological Problems in the Balloon Analogue Risk Task and Implications for Its Use","authors":"Kristel de Groot","doi":"10.36850/mr1e","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36850/mr1e","url":null,"abstract":"necessarily reflect those of the journal. Abstract Studies in the field of psychology often employ (computerized) behavioral tasks, aimed at mimicking real-world situations that elicit certain actions in participants. Such tasks are for example used to study risk propensity, a trait-like tendency towards taking or avoiding risk. One of the most popular tasks for gauging risk propensity is the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART; Lejuez et al., 2002), which has been shown to relate well to self-reported risk-taking and to real-world risk behaviors. However, despite its popularity and qualities, the BART has several methodological shortcomings, most of which have been reported before, but none of which are widely known. In the present paper, four such problems are explained and elaborated on: a lack of clarity as to whether decisions are characterized by uncertainty or risk; censoring of observations; confounding of risk and expected value; and poor decomposability into adaptive and maladaptive risk behavior. Furthermore, for every problem, a range of possible solutions is discussed, which overall can be divided into three categories: using a different, more informative outcome index than the standard average pump score; modifying one or more task elements; or using a different task, either an alternative risk-taking task (sequential or otherwise), or a custom-made instrument. It is important to make use of these solutions, as applying the BART without accounting for its shortcomings may lead to interpretational problems, including false-positive and falsenegative results. Depending on the research aims of a given study, certain shortcomings are more pressing than others, indicating the (type of) solutions most needed. By combining solutions and openly discussing shortcomings, researchers may be able to modify the BART in such a way that it can operationalize risk propensity without substantial methodological problems.","PeriodicalId":275817,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trial and Error","volume":"114 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116725210","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Studies in the field of psychology often employ (computerized) behavioral tasks, aimed at mimicking real-world situations that elicit certain actions in participants. Such tasks are for example used to study risk propensity, a trait-like tendency towards taking or avoiding risk. One of the most popular tasks for gauging risk propensity is the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART; Lejuez et al., 2002), which has been shown to relate well to self-reported risk-taking and to real-world risk behaviors. However, despite its popularity and qualities, the BART has several methodological shortcomings, most of which have been reported before, but none of which are widely known. In the present paper, four such problems are explained and elaborated on: a lack of clarity as to whether decisions are characterized by uncertainty or risk; censoring of observations; confounding of risk and expected value; and poor decomposability into adaptive and maladaptive risk behavior. Furthermore, for every problem, a range of possible solutions is discussed, which overall can be divided into three categories: using a different, more informative outcome index than the standard average pump score; modifying one or more task elements; or using a different task, either an alternative risk-taking task (sequential or otherwise), or a custom-made instrument. It is important to make use of these solutions, as applying the BART without accounting for its shortcomings may lead to interpretational problems, including false-positive and false-negative results. Depending on the research aims of a given study, certain shortcomings are more pressing than others, indicating the (type of) solutions most needed. By combining solutions and openly discussing shortcomings, researchers may be able to modify the BART in such a way that it can operationalize risk propensity without substantial methodological problems.
心理学领域的研究经常采用(计算机化的)行为任务，旨在模仿现实世界的情况，从而引发参与者的某些行为。例如，这些任务用于研究风险倾向，即承担或避免风险的倾向。衡量风险倾向的最流行的任务之一是气球模拟风险任务(BART;Lejuez et al.， 2002)，这已被证明与自我报告的冒险行为和现实世界的风险行为有很好的关系。然而，尽管BART广受欢迎，质量也很好，但它在方法上有几个缺点，其中大部分都是以前报道过的，但没有一个是广为人知的。在本文中，解释和阐述了四个这样的问题:决策是否具有不确定性或风险的特征缺乏明确性;对观察结果的审查;风险与期望值的混淆;可分解性差，可分解为适应性和非适应性风险行为。此外，对于每个问题，讨论了一系列可能的解决方案，总体上可分为三类:使用不同的、比标准平均泵评分更有信息量的结果指标;修改一个或多个任务元素;或者使用不同的任务，要么是另一项冒险任务(顺序或其他)，要么是定制的工具。重要的是要利用这些解决方案，因为应用BART而不考虑其缺点可能导致解释问题，包括假阳性和假阴性结果。根据特定研究的研究目的，某些缺点比其他缺点更紧迫，这表明最需要的解决方案(类型)。通过结合解决方案并公开讨论缺点，研究人员可能能够以这样一种方式修改BART，使其能够在没有实质性方法问题的情况下操作风险倾向。
{"title":"Burst Beliefs – Methodological Problems in the Balloon Analogue Risk Task and Implications for Its Use","authors":"K. Groot","doi":"10.36850/mr1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36850/mr1","url":null,"abstract":"Studies in the field of psychology often employ (computerized) behavioral tasks, aimed at mimicking real-world situations that elicit certain actions in participants. Such tasks are for example used to study risk propensity, a trait-like tendency towards taking or avoiding risk. One of the most popular tasks for gauging risk propensity is the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART; Lejuez et al., 2002), which has been shown to relate well to self-reported risk-taking and to real-world risk behaviors. However, despite its popularity and qualities, the BART has several methodological shortcomings, most of which have been reported before, but none of which are widely known. In the present paper, four such problems are explained and elaborated on: a lack of clarity as to whether decisions are characterized by uncertainty or risk; censoring of observations; confounding of risk and expected value; and poor decomposability into adaptive and maladaptive risk behavior. Furthermore, for every problem, a range of possible solutions is discussed, which overall can be divided into three categories: using a different, more informative outcome index than the standard average pump score; modifying one or more task elements; or using a different task, either an alternative risk-taking task (sequential or otherwise), or a custom-made instrument. It is important to make use of these solutions, as applying the BART without accounting for its shortcomings may lead to interpretational problems, including false-positive and false-negative results. Depending on the research aims of a given study, certain shortcomings are more pressing than others, indicating the (type of) solutions most needed. By combining solutions and openly discussing shortcomings, researchers may be able to modify the BART in such a way that it can operationalize risk propensity without substantial methodological problems.","PeriodicalId":275817,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trial and Error","volume":"144 8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129606284","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Floor van Meer, Stephen L. Murphy, W. Hofmann, H. van Steenbergen, Lotte F. van Dillen
When individuals eat while distracted, they may compensate by consuming more afterwards. Here, we examined the effect of eating while driving, and explored potential underlying mechanisms. Participants (N = 116, 73.3% female) were randomly allocated to complete a driving simulation (distraction condition) or to watch someone else drive (control condition) while consuming 10g (50.8 kcal) of potato chips. Afterwards, participants rated the taste intensity and hedonic experience, reported stress levels, and were then given the opportunity to eat more chips. As hypothesized, participants consumed more chips after the driving simulation. Stress levels were higher in the driving compared to control condition, but were inversely related to consumption amount, ruling out stress as explanatory mechanism. Saltiness ratings differed between the driving and passive viewing condition, only when controlling for stress. The current findings converge with earlier work showing that distracted eating can drive overconsumption, which in turn can lead to long-term health implications. Limitations, implications and potential directions are discussed.
{"title":"Driven to Snack: Simulated Driving Increases Subsequent Consumption","authors":"Floor van Meer, Stephen L. Murphy, W. Hofmann, H. van Steenbergen, Lotte F. van Dillen","doi":"10.36850/e13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36850/e13","url":null,"abstract":"When individuals eat while distracted, they may compensate by consuming more afterwards. Here, we examined the effect of eating while driving, and explored potential underlying mechanisms. Participants (N = 116, 73.3% female) were randomly allocated to complete a driving simulation (distraction condition) or to watch someone else drive (control condition) while consuming 10g (50.8 kcal) of potato chips. Afterwards, participants rated the taste intensity and hedonic experience, reported stress levels, and were then given the opportunity to eat more chips. As hypothesized, participants consumed more chips after the driving simulation. Stress levels were higher in the driving compared to control condition, but were inversely related to consumption amount, ruling out stress as explanatory mechanism. Saltiness ratings differed between the driving and passive viewing condition, only when controlling for stress. The current findings converge with earlier work showing that distracted eating can drive overconsumption, which in turn can lead to long-term health implications. Limitations, implications and potential directions are discussed.","PeriodicalId":275817,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trial and Error","volume":"214 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124213070","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：