학제간연구 | Interdisciplinary Studies in Gambling | 跨学科研究
- date : 2015-05-20 01:10|hit : 1924
-
- Article] Is deck C an advantageous deck in the Iowa gambling task?
-
DocNo of ILP: 4176
Doc. Type: Article
Title: Is deck C an advantageous deck in the Iowa gambling task?
Authors: Chiu, YC; Lin, CH
Full Name of Authors: Chiu, Yao-Chu; Lin, Ching-Hung
Keywords by Author:
Keywords Plus: SOMATIC-MARKER-HYPOTHESIS; VENTROMEDIAL PREFRONTAL CORTEX; DECISION-MAKING; SCHIZOPHRENIA; PERFORMANCE; DAMAGE; CONSEQUENCES; DISSOCIATION; PSYCHOLOGY; FEEDBACK
Abstract: Background: Dunn et al. performed a critical review identifying some problems in the Somatic Marker Hypothesis ( SMH). Most of the arguments presented by Dunn focused on the insufficiencies for replication of skin conductance responses and somatic brain loops, but the study did not carefully reassess the core-task of SMH. In a related study, Lin and Chiu et al. identified a serious problem, namely the "prominent deck B phenomenon" in the original IGT. Building on this observation, Lin and Chiu also posited that deck C rather than deck A was preferred by normal decision makers due to good gain-loss frequency rather than good final-outcome. To verify this hypothesis, a modified IGT was designed that possessed high contrast of gain-loss value in each trial, with the aim of achieving a balance between decks A and C in terms of gain-loss frequency. Based on the basic assumption of IGT, participants should prefer deck C to deck A based on consideration of final-outcome. In contrast, based on the prediction of gain-loss frequency, participants should have roughly equal preferences for decks A and C. Methods: This investigation recruited 48 college students ( 24 males and 24 females) as participants. Two-stage IGT with high-contrast gain-loss value was launched to examine the deck C argument. Each participant completed the modified IGT twice and immediately afterwards was administered a questionnaire to assess their consciousness and final preferences following the game. Results: The experimental results supported the predictions regarding gain-loss frequency participants choose the deck C with nearly identical frequency to deck A, despite deck C having a better final outcome than deck A. The "sunken deck C" phenomenon is clearly identified in this version of IGT which achieves a balance in gain-loss frequency. Moreover, the "sunken deck C" phenomenon not only appears during the first stage, but also during the second stage of IGT. In addition, questionnaires indicated that normal decision makers disliked deck C at the consciousness ( explicit) levels. Conclusion: In the modified version of IGT, deck C was no longer preferred by normal decision makers, despite having a better long-term outcome than deck A. This study identified two problems in the original IGT. First, the gain-loss frequency between decks A and C is pseudo-balanced. Second, the covered phenomenon leads to most IGT related studies misinterpreting the effect of gain-loss frequency in situations involving long-term outcomes, and even leads to overstatement of the foresight of normal decision makers.
Cate of OECD: Psychology
Year of Publication: 2007
Business Area: game
Detail Business: game
Country: England
Study Area: reviewprediction, review, prediction, student, gender, preference, schizo-obsessive
Name of Journal: BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN FUNCTIONS
Language: English
Country of Authors: Soochow Univ, Dept Psychol, Taipei, Taiwan; Natl Yang Ming Univ, Sch Life Sci, Inst Neurosci, Taipei, Taiwan; Taipei Vet Gen Hosp, Dept Med Res & Educ, Lab Integrated Brain Res, Taipei, Taiwan
Press Adress: Lin, CH (reprint author), Soochow Univ, Dept Psychol, Taipei, Taiwan.
Email Address: yaochu@mail2000.com.tw
Citaion:
Funding:
Lists of Citation: Bark R, 2005, PSYCHIAT RES, V134, P131, DOI 10.1016/j.psychres.2004.04.013; BAUMEISTER R, 2003, PSYCHOL EC DECISIONS, V1; Bechara A, 1998, J NEUROSCI, V18, P428; Bechara A, 1999, J NEUROSCI, V19, P5473; Bechara A, 1997, SCIENCE, V275, P1293, DOI 10.1126/science.275.5304.1293; BECHARA A, 1994, COGNITION, V50, P7, DOI 10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3; Bechara A, 2000, BRAIN, V123, P2189, DOI 10.1093/brain/123.11.2189; Berridge K., 2003, PSYCHOL EC DECISIONS, V1, P17; Bowman CH, 2005, BRAIN COGNITION, V57, P21, DOI 10.1016/j.bandc.2004.08.015; Caroselli JS, 2006, APPL NEUROPSYCHOL, V13, P203, DOI 10.1207/s15324826an1304_1; CHIU YC, 2005, P SOC NEUR 3 ANN M S; Crone EA, 2004, PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY, V41, P531, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2004.00197.x; DAMASIO AR, 1990, BEHAV BRAIN RES, V41, P81, DOI 10.1016/0166-4328(90)90144-4; Damasio AR, 1996, PHILOS T R SOC B, V351, P1413, DOI 10.1098/rstb.1996.0125; DAMASIO H, 1994, SCIENCE, V264, P1102, DOI 10.1126/science.8178168; DAMASION AR, 2004, DESCARTES ERROR EMOT; Dunn BD, 2006, NEUROSCI BIOBEHAV R, V30, P239, DOI 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.07.001; Fernie G, 2006, BRAIN COGNITION, V60, P94, DOI 10.1016/j.bandc.2005.09.011; Glimcher PW, 2004, SCIENCE, V306, P447, DOI 10.1126/science.1102566; HASTIE R, 2001, RATIONAL DECISION UN; Heims HC, 2004, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, V42, P1979, DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.06.001; HERRNSTE.RJ, 1974, J EXP ANAL BEHAV, V21, P159, DOI 10.1901/jeab.1974.21-159; Kahneman D, 2003, AM ECON REV, V93, P1449, DOI 10.1257/000282803322655392; KAHNEMAN D, 1979, ECONOMETRICA, V47, P263, DOI 10.2307/1914185; Leland JW, 2005, GAME ECON BEHAV, V52, P386, DOI 10.1016/j.geb.2004.09.001; LICHTENS.S, 1969, J EXP PSYCHOL, V79, P236, DOI 10.1037/h0026888; Lin CH, 2007, BEHAV BRAIN FUNCT, V3, DOI 10.1186/1744-9081-3-16; LIN CH, 2006, P SOC NEUR 4 ANN M S; LIN CH, 2004, P 2 C NEUROECONOMICS; MacPherson SE, 2002, PSYCHOL AGING, V17, P598, DOI 10.1037//0882-7974.17.4.598; Maia TV, 2004, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V101, P16075, DOI 10.1073/pnas.0406666101; MARTINO DJ, 2007, PSYCHIAT RES; North NT, 2001, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, V39, P521, DOI 10.1016/S0028-3932(00)00107-X; O'Carroll RE, 2003, J NEUROL NEUROSUR PS, V74, P376, DOI 10.1136/jnnp.74.3.376; Overman W, 2006, BEHAV NEUROSCI, V120, P817, DOI 10.1037/0735-7044.120.4.817; Overman WH, 2004, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, V42, P1838, DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.03.014; RACHLIN H, 1991, INTRO MODEM BEHAV; Ritter LM, 2004, SCHIZOPHR RES, V68, P65, DOI 10.1016/S0920-9964(03)00086-0; Rodriguez-Sanchez JM, 2005, SCHIZOPHR RES, V77, P279, DOI 10.1016/j.schres.2005.04.023; Rolls E.T., 2005, EMOTION EXPLAINED; Shiv B, 2005, PSYCHOL SCI, V16, P435; Suzuki A, 2003, BIOL PSYCHOL, V65, P81, DOI 10.1016/S0301-0511(03)00093-0; Tomb I, 2002, NAT NEUROSCI, V5, P1103, DOI 10.1038/nn1102-1104; Toplak Maggie E, 2005, Behav Brain Funct, V1, P8, DOI 10.1186/1744-9081-1-8; TVERSKY A, 1981, SCIENCE, V211, P453, DOI 10.1126/science.7455683; Wasserman E. A., 2002, PSYCHOL LEARNING BEH; Wilder KE, 1998, SCHIZOPHR RES, V30, P169, DOI 10.1016/S0920-9964(97)00135-7
Number of Citaion: 47
Publication: BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
City of Publication: LONDON
Address of Publication: MIDDLESEX HOUSE, 34-42 CLEVELAND ST, LONDON W1T 4LB, ENGLAND
ISSN: 1744-9081
29-Character Source Abbreviation: BEHAV BRAIN FUNCT
ISO Source Abbreviation: Behav. Brain Funct.
Volume: 3
Version:
Start of File:
End of File:
DOI: 10.1186/1744-9081-3-37
Number of Pages: 11
Web of Science Category: Behavioral Sciences; Neurosciences
Subject Category: Behavioral Sciences; Neurosciences & Neurology
Document Delivery Number: 235SI
Unique Article Identifier: WOS:000251254200001
- reply : 0
-
- list
-
- prev
- next