It's All in How You Think About It: Construal Level and the Iowa Gambling Task

Overview

Journal Front Neurosci

Date 2016 Feb 3

PMID 26834531

Citations 6

Authors

Bradley M Okdie

Melissa T Buelow

Kurstie Bevelhymer-Rangel

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Recent research has identified a number of factors that can influence performance on the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) when it is used in clinical or research settings. The current studies examine the effects of construal level theory (CLT) on the IGT. Study 1 suggests that when primed with a high construal mindset (i.e., thinking abstractly vs. concretely), individuals learned to avoid Deck A more than those primed with a low construal mindset. Study 2 suggests that when construal level is manipulated through psychological distance (i.e., selecting for a close vs. distant friend), individuals in a high construal mindset instead showed a preference for Deck A compared to individuals in a low construal mindset or a control group. Taken together, these studies suggest that IGT performance is impacted by the manner in which one construes the task. Implications for decision making research and use of the IGT as a clinical and research instrument are discussed.

Citing Articles

Contextual Factors Affecting Risky Decision Making: The Influence of Music on Task Performance and Perceived Distraction.

Buelow M, Jungers M, Parks C, Rinato B Front Psychol. 2022; 13:818689.

PMID: 35310222 PMC: 8926386. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.818689.

Recollecting Cross-Cultural Evidences: Are Decision Makers Really Foresighted in Iowa Gambling Task?.

Lee W, Lin C, Liu L, Lin C, Chiu Y Front Psychol. 2021; 11:537219.

PMID: 33408659 PMC: 7779794. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.537219.

Functional Cerebral Specialization and Decision Making in the Iowa Gambling Task: A Single-Case Study of Left-Hemispheric Atrophy and Hemispherotomy.

Singh V, Chaudhary K, Kumaran S, Chandra S, Tripathi M Front Psychol. 2020; 11:725.

PMID: 32373036 PMC: 7186408. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00725.

Country and Sex Differences in Decision Making Under Uncertainty and Risk.

Singh V, Schiebener J, Muller S, Liebherr M, Brand M, Buelow M Front Psychol. 2020; 11:486.

PMID: 32265793 PMC: 7101158. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00486.

Social distance modulates the process of uncertain decision-making: evidence from event-related potentials.

Guo H, Song H, Liu Y, Xu K, Shen H Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2019; 12:701-714.

PMID: 31686926 PMC: 6709518. DOI: 10.2147/PRBM.S210910.

References

Greene J, Sommerville R, Nystrom L, Darley J, Cohen J . An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science. 2001; 293(5537):2105-8. DOI: 10.1126/science.1062872. View

Preston S, Buchanan T, Stansfield R, Bechara A . Effects of anticipatory stress on decision making in a gambling task. Behav Neurosci. 2007; 121(2):257-63. DOI: 10.1037/0735-7044.121.2.257. View

Lin C, Chiu Y, Huang J . Gain-loss frequency and final outcome in the Soochow Gambling Task: A Reassessment. Behav Brain Funct. 2009; 5:45. PMC: 2781015. DOI: 10.1186/1744-9081-5-45. View

Toplak M, Jain U, Tannock R . Executive and motivational processes in adolescents with Attention-Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Behav Brain Funct. 2005; 1(1):8. PMC: 1183187. DOI: 10.1186/1744-9081-1-8. View

Goudriaan A, Grekin E, Sher K . Decision making and binge drinking: a longitudinal study. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2007; 31(6):928-38. PMC: 2667377. DOI: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2007.00378.x. View

Denburg N, Recknor E, Bechara A, Tranel D . Psychophysiological anticipation of positive outcomes promotes advantageous decision-making in normal older persons. Int J Psychophysiol. 2006; 61(1):19-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2005.10.021. View

Liberman N, Eyal T, Trope Y, Walther E . The pros and cons of temporally near and distant action. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004; 86(6):781-95. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.6.781. View

Bechara A, Damasio A, Damasio H, Anderson S . Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition. 1994; 50(1-3):7-15. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3. View

Forgas J . Mood and judgment: the affect infusion model (AIM). Psychol Bull. 1995; 117(1):39-66. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.39. View

10.

Buelow M, Frakey L, Grace J, Friedman J . The contribution of apathy and increased learning trials to risky decision-making in Parkinson's disease. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2013; 29(1):100-9. DOI: 10.1093/arclin/act065. View

11.

Must A, Szabo Z, Bodi N, Szasz A, Janka Z, Keri S . Sensitivity to reward and punishment and the prefrontal cortex in major depression. J Affect Disord. 2006; 90(2-3):209-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2005.12.005. View

12.

Fujita K, Trope Y, Liberman N, Levin-Sagi M . Construal levels and self-control. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006; 90(3):351-67. PMC: 3153425. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.351. View

13.

Torelli C, Kaikati A . Values as predictors of judgments and behaviors: the role of abstract and concrete mindsets. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009; 96(1):231-47. DOI: 10.1037/a0013836. View

14.

Bechara A, Damasio H, Tranel D, Damasio A . Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science. 1997; 275(5304):1293-5. DOI: 10.1126/science.275.5304.1293. View

15.

Buelow M, Okdie B, Blaine A . Seeing the forest through the trees: improving decision making on the Iowa gambling task by shifting focus from short- to long-term outcomes. Front Psychol. 2013; 4:773. PMC: 3798868. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00773. View

16.

Trope Y, Liberman N, Wakslak C . Construal Levels and Psychological Distance: Effects on Representation, Prediction, Evaluation, and Behavior. J Consum Psychol. 2011; 17(2):83-95. PMC: 3150814. DOI: 10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70013-X. View

17.

Bolla K, Eldreth D, Matochik J, Cadet J . Neural substrates of faulty decision-making in abstinent marijuana users. Neuroimage. 2005; 26(2):480-92. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.02.012. View

18.

Kirby K, Petry N, Bickel W . Heroin addicts have higher discount rates for delayed rewards than non-drug-using controls. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1999; 128(1):78-87. DOI: 10.1037//0096-3445.128.1.78. View

19.

Guillaume S, Jollant F, Jaussent I, Lawrence N, Malafosse A, Courtet P . Somatic markers and explicit knowledge are both involved in decision-making. Neuropsychologia. 2009; 47(10):2120-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.04.003. View

20.

van Honk J, Hermans E, Putman P, Montagne B, Schutter D . Defective somatic markers in sub-clinical psychopathy. Neuroreport. 2002; 13(8):1025-7. DOI: 10.1097/00001756-200206120-00009. View