情感决策评估:探索气球模拟风险任务和哥伦比亚卡片任务的替代计分方法

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2023-12-20 DOI:10.1002/bdm.2367
Stjepan Sambol, Emra Suleyman, Michelle Ball
{"title":"情感决策评估:探索气球模拟风险任务和哥伦比亚卡片任务的替代计分方法","authors":"Stjepan Sambol,&nbsp;Emra Suleyman,&nbsp;Michelle Ball","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2367","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Affective decision-making (ADM) is recognized as the ability to effectively reappraise stimuli during these decisions to make choices that maximize long-term outcomes. Currently, the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) is the gold-standard measure of ADM. Previous research has shown that other commonly used decision-making tasks such as the Balloon Analog Risk Task (BART) and Columbia Card Task (CCT) are unrelated to the IGT and may assess distinct decision-making constructs from ADM. Yet the exact decision-making constructs that these tasks assess may be dependent on the scoring method utilized. One-hundred and eight-four participants (18–58 years; <i>M</i> = 26.29, <i>SD</i> = 7.79) completed the IGT, BART, and CCT. The relationships between these tasks while utilizing both traditional and novel scoring methods for the BART and CCT were investigated. Results showed that whether using the novel or traditional scoring methods, the BART failed to produce any meaningful relationships with the IGT or CCT. The BART may capture unique decision-making processes involved during conditions of uncertainty, whereas the other tasks involve decision-making processes under conditions of known risk. Alternatively, the lack of meaningful relationships may be due to the stochastic design of the BART. Conversely, the novel and traditional scoring methods for the CCT, which were not significantly correlated with each other, were both related to the IGT. Ultimately, this study showed that the CCT can capture different decision-making constructs depending on the scoring methods used. The traditional scoring method, the total number of cards flipped, assesses risk propensity, whereas the newly developed optimal–suboptimal difference score assesses ADM.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.2367","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The assessment of affective decision-making: Exploring alternative scoring methods for the Balloon Analog Risk Task and Columbia Card Task\",\"authors\":\"Stjepan Sambol,&nbsp;Emra Suleyman,&nbsp;Michelle Ball\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/bdm.2367\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Affective decision-making (ADM) is recognized as the ability to effectively reappraise stimuli during these decisions to make choices that maximize long-term outcomes. Currently, the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) is the gold-standard measure of ADM. Previous research has shown that other commonly used decision-making tasks such as the Balloon Analog Risk Task (BART) and Columbia Card Task (CCT) are unrelated to the IGT and may assess distinct decision-making constructs from ADM. Yet the exact decision-making constructs that these tasks assess may be dependent on the scoring method utilized. One-hundred and eight-four participants (18–58 years; <i>M</i> = 26.29, <i>SD</i> = 7.79) completed the IGT, BART, and CCT. The relationships between these tasks while utilizing both traditional and novel scoring methods for the BART and CCT were investigated. Results showed that whether using the novel or traditional scoring methods, the BART failed to produce any meaningful relationships with the IGT or CCT. The BART may capture unique decision-making processes involved during conditions of uncertainty, whereas the other tasks involve decision-making processes under conditions of known risk. Alternatively, the lack of meaningful relationships may be due to the stochastic design of the BART. Conversely, the novel and traditional scoring methods for the CCT, which were not significantly correlated with each other, were both related to the IGT. Ultimately, this study showed that the CCT can capture different decision-making constructs depending on the scoring methods used. The traditional scoring method, the total number of cards flipped, assesses risk propensity, whereas the newly developed optimal–suboptimal difference score assesses ADM.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48112,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.2367\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.2367\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.2367","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

情感决策(ADM)被认为是一种在决策过程中有效地重新评估刺激物的能力,从而做出能够最大限度地提高长期结果的选择。目前,爱荷华赌博任务(IGT)是衡量情感决策能力的黄金标准。之前的研究表明,其他常用的决策任务,如气球模拟风险任务(BART)和哥伦比亚卡任务(CCT)与 IGT 无关,可能评估的是与 ADM 不同的决策结构。然而,这些任务所评估的确切决策结构可能取决于所使用的评分方法。184 名参与者(18-58 岁;中位数 = 26.29,标准差 = 7.79)完成了 IGT、BART 和 CCT。在对 BART 和 CCT 采用传统和新型计分方法时,对这些任务之间的关系进行了调查。结果显示,无论是使用新颖的还是传统的评分方法,BART 都未能与 IGT 或 CCT 产生任何有意义的关系。BART 可能捕捉到了不确定条件下的独特决策过程,而其他任务则涉及已知风险条件下的决策过程。另外,缺乏有意义的关系也可能是由于 BART 的随机设计造成的。相反,CCT 的新评分方法和传统评分方法虽然没有显著的相关性,但都与 IGT 有关。最终,本研究表明,CCT 可以捕捉到不同的决策结构,这取决于所使用的评分方法。传统的计分方法,即翻牌总数,评估的是风险倾向,而新开发的最优-次优差异分数评估的是ADM。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The assessment of affective decision-making: Exploring alternative scoring methods for the Balloon Analog Risk Task and Columbia Card Task

Affective decision-making (ADM) is recognized as the ability to effectively reappraise stimuli during these decisions to make choices that maximize long-term outcomes. Currently, the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) is the gold-standard measure of ADM. Previous research has shown that other commonly used decision-making tasks such as the Balloon Analog Risk Task (BART) and Columbia Card Task (CCT) are unrelated to the IGT and may assess distinct decision-making constructs from ADM. Yet the exact decision-making constructs that these tasks assess may be dependent on the scoring method utilized. One-hundred and eight-four participants (18–58 years; M = 26.29, SD = 7.79) completed the IGT, BART, and CCT. The relationships between these tasks while utilizing both traditional and novel scoring methods for the BART and CCT were investigated. Results showed that whether using the novel or traditional scoring methods, the BART failed to produce any meaningful relationships with the IGT or CCT. The BART may capture unique decision-making processes involved during conditions of uncertainty, whereas the other tasks involve decision-making processes under conditions of known risk. Alternatively, the lack of meaningful relationships may be due to the stochastic design of the BART. Conversely, the novel and traditional scoring methods for the CCT, which were not significantly correlated with each other, were both related to the IGT. Ultimately, this study showed that the CCT can capture different decision-making constructs depending on the scoring methods used. The traditional scoring method, the total number of cards flipped, assesses risk propensity, whereas the newly developed optimal–suboptimal difference score assesses ADM.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral Decision Making is a multidisciplinary journal with a broad base of content and style. It publishes original empirical reports, critical review papers, theoretical analyses and methodological contributions. The Journal also features book, software and decision aiding technique reviews, abstracts of important articles published elsewhere and teaching suggestions. The objective of the Journal is to present and stimulate behavioral research on decision making and to provide a forum for the evaluation of complementary, contrasting and conflicting perspectives. These perspectives include psychology, management science, sociology, political science and economics. Studies of behavioral decision making in naturalistic and applied settings are encouraged.
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of Extended Decision Outcomes Diffusion of Responsibility for Actions With Advice Dynamics of Reliance on Algorithmic Advice PDOSPERT: A New Scale to Predict Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Behaviors in Times of a Pandemic Variation in Valence Intensity Within Frames: Testing Predictions of Prospect Theory and Fuzzy-Trace Theory
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1