在 "饿驴任务 "和 "爱荷华赌博任务 "中,老年人会做出更冒险的决定吗?

IF 1.6 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-10-12 DOI:10.1080/13825585.2022.2134549
Alessia Rosi
{"title":"在 \"饿驴任务 \"和 \"爱荷华赌博任务 \"中,老年人会做出更冒险的决定吗?","authors":"Alessia Rosi","doi":"10.1080/13825585.2022.2134549","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) and the Hungry Donkey Task (HDT) are well-known tasks employed to assess decisions under ambiguity. Although the two tasks are equal in terms of wins and losses, they differ in terms of the recipient: while in the IGT participants make decisions for themselves, in the HDT decisions are made to help a hungry donkey. Decisions for themselves versus another one in a situation of ambiguity are particularly important in the field of aging because of older adults' changes in motivational and other-oriented behavior. The present study aimed to test whether older adults make different decisions under ambiguity for themselves than for another one (i.e., the hungry donkey) as compared to younger adults. Forty-five young adults (M = 23.31; SD = 1.58) and 45 older adults (M = 72.47; SD = 5.49) performed the IGT and the HDT. In addition, participants performed tasks on working memory, set-shifting, and inhibition. Results showed age-related differences in the HDT but not in the IGT. Older adults, compared to younger adults, made disadvantageous decisions to help the hungry donkey as compared to themselves. Interestingly, this pattern of results is not explained by the age-related decline in cognitive functioning. The findings seem to suggest that older adults' decisions made under the condition of ambiguity are affected by motivational and emotional changes associated with aging.</p>","PeriodicalId":7532,"journal":{"name":"Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do older adults make more risky decisions in the Hungry Donkey Task or in the Iowa Gambling Task?\",\"authors\":\"Alessia Rosi\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13825585.2022.2134549\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) and the Hungry Donkey Task (HDT) are well-known tasks employed to assess decisions under ambiguity. Although the two tasks are equal in terms of wins and losses, they differ in terms of the recipient: while in the IGT participants make decisions for themselves, in the HDT decisions are made to help a hungry donkey. Decisions for themselves versus another one in a situation of ambiguity are particularly important in the field of aging because of older adults' changes in motivational and other-oriented behavior. The present study aimed to test whether older adults make different decisions under ambiguity for themselves than for another one (i.e., the hungry donkey) as compared to younger adults. Forty-five young adults (M = 23.31; SD = 1.58) and 45 older adults (M = 72.47; SD = 5.49) performed the IGT and the HDT. In addition, participants performed tasks on working memory, set-shifting, and inhibition. Results showed age-related differences in the HDT but not in the IGT. Older adults, compared to younger adults, made disadvantageous decisions to help the hungry donkey as compared to themselves. Interestingly, this pattern of results is not explained by the age-related decline in cognitive functioning. The findings seem to suggest that older adults' decisions made under the condition of ambiguity are affected by motivational and emotional changes associated with aging.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7532,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2022.2134549\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/10/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2022.2134549","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/10/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

爱荷华赌博任务(IGT)和饿驴任务(HDT)是著名的任务,用于评估在模糊条件下的决策。虽然这两项任务在输赢方面相同,但在接受者方面却有所不同:在爱荷华赌博任务中,参与者是为自己做决定,而在饥饿驴任务中,参与者是为了帮助一头饥饿的驴子而做决定。在模棱两可的情况下,为自己做决定与为他人做决定在老龄化领域尤为重要,因为老年人的动机和面向他人的行为会发生变化。本研究旨在测试老年人在模棱两可的情况下为自己做决定与为他人(即饥饿的驴)做决定是否有别于年轻人。45 名年轻人(中位数 = 23.31;标准差 = 1.58)和 45 名老年人(中位数 = 72.47;标准差 = 5.49)进行了 IGT 和 HDT 测试。此外,参与者还完成了工作记忆、集合转换和抑制等任务。结果表明,HDT 与年龄有关,但 IGT 与年龄无关。与年轻人相比,老年人在决定帮助饥饿的驴子时与自己相比处于劣势。有趣的是,与年龄相关的认知功能下降并不能解释这种结果模式。研究结果似乎表明,老年人在模棱两可的条件下做出的决定会受到与衰老相关的动机和情绪变化的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Do older adults make more risky decisions in the Hungry Donkey Task or in the Iowa Gambling Task?

The Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) and the Hungry Donkey Task (HDT) are well-known tasks employed to assess decisions under ambiguity. Although the two tasks are equal in terms of wins and losses, they differ in terms of the recipient: while in the IGT participants make decisions for themselves, in the HDT decisions are made to help a hungry donkey. Decisions for themselves versus another one in a situation of ambiguity are particularly important in the field of aging because of older adults' changes in motivational and other-oriented behavior. The present study aimed to test whether older adults make different decisions under ambiguity for themselves than for another one (i.e., the hungry donkey) as compared to younger adults. Forty-five young adults (M = 23.31; SD = 1.58) and 45 older adults (M = 72.47; SD = 5.49) performed the IGT and the HDT. In addition, participants performed tasks on working memory, set-shifting, and inhibition. Results showed age-related differences in the HDT but not in the IGT. Older adults, compared to younger adults, made disadvantageous decisions to help the hungry donkey as compared to themselves. Interestingly, this pattern of results is not explained by the age-related decline in cognitive functioning. The findings seem to suggest that older adults' decisions made under the condition of ambiguity are affected by motivational and emotional changes associated with aging.

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
4.30
自引率
5.30%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: The purposes of Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition are to (a) publish research on both the normal and dysfunctional aspects of cognitive development in adulthood and aging, and (b) promote the integration of theories, methods, and research findings between the fields of cognitive gerontology and neuropsychology. The primary emphasis of the journal is to publish original empirical research. Occasionally, theoretical or methodological papers, critical reviews of a content area, or theoretically relevant case studies will also be published.
期刊最新文献
Cognitive components of aging-related increase in word-finding difficulty. Accelerated long-term forgetting: from subjective memory decline to a defined clinical entity. Naturalistic assessments in virtual reality and in real life help resolve the age-prospective memory paradox. Effects of extended practice and unitization on relational memory in older adults and neuropsychological lesion cases. Age differences in spatial memory are mitigated during naturalistic navigation.
×
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