Literature DB >> 19379045

Affective and deliberative processes in risky choice: age differences in risk taking in the Columbia Card Task.

Bernd Figner1, Rachael J Mackinlay, Friedrich Wilkening, Elke U Weber.   

Abstract

The authors investigated risk taking and underlying information use in 13- to 16- and 17- to 19-year-old adolescents and in adults in 4 experiments, using a novel dynamic risk-taking task, the Columbia Card Task (CCT). The authors investigated risk taking under differential involvement of affective versus deliberative processes with 2 versions of the CCT, constituting the most direct test of a dual-system explanation of adolescent risk taking in the literature so far. The "hot" CCT was designed to trigger more affective decision making, whereas the "cold" CCT was designed to trigger more deliberative decision making. Differential involvement of affective versus deliberative processes in the 2 CCT versions was established by self-reports and assessment of electrodermal activity. Increased adolescent risk taking, coupled with simplified information use, was found in the hot but not the cold condition. Need-for-arousal predicted risk taking only in the hot condition, whereas executive functions predicted information use in the cold condition. Results are consistent with recent dual-system explanations of risk taking as the result of competition between affective processes and deliberative cognitive-control processes, with adolescents' affective system tending to override the deliberative system in states of heightened emotional arousal. Copyright 2009 APA, all rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19379045     DOI: 10.1037/a0014983

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn        ISSN: 0278-7393            Impact factor:   3.051


  151 in total

1.  Reduced neuronal inhibition and coordination of adolescent prefrontal cortex during motivated behavior.

Authors:  David A Sturman; Bita Moghaddam
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2011-01-26       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  Age-related differences in emotional reactivity, regulation, and rejection sensitivity in adolescence.

Authors:  Jennifer A Silvers; Kateri McRae; John D E Gabrieli; James J Gross; Katherine A Remy; Kevin N Ochsner
Journal:  Emotion       Date:  2012-05-28

3.  Self-reported strategies in decisions under risk: role of feedback, reasoning abilities, executive functions, short-term-memory, and working memory.

Authors:  Johannes Schiebener; Matthias Brand
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2015-08-20

4.  Stability and change in risk-taking propensity across the adult life span.

Authors:  Anika K Josef; David Richter; Gregory R Samanez-Larkin; Gert G Wagner; Ralph Hertwig; Rui Mata
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2016-01-28

Review 5.  Developmental perspectives on risky and impulsive choice.

Authors:  Gail M Rosenbaum; Catherine A Hartley
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2019-02-18       Impact factor: 6.237

6.  An Overview of Judgment and Decision Making Research Through the Lens of Fuzzy Trace Theory.

Authors:  Roni Setton; Evan Wilhelms; Becky Weldon; Christina Chick; Valerie Reyna
Journal:  Xin Li Ke Xue Jin Zhan       Date:  2014-12

7.  Incentives facilitate developmental improvement in inhibitory control by modulating control-related networks.

Authors:  Michael N Hallquist; Charles F Geier; Beatriz Luna
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 6.556

8.  Emotion and decision-making under uncertainty: Physiological arousal predicts increased gambling during ambiguity but not risk.

Authors:  Oriel FeldmanHall; Paul Glimcher; Augustus L Baker; Elizabeth A Phelps
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2016-10

9.  Concussion under-reporting and pressure from coaches, teammates, fans, and parents.

Authors:  Emily Kroshus; Bernice Garnett; Matt Hawrilenko; Christine M Baugh; Jerel P Calzo
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2015-04-20       Impact factor: 4.634

10.  Factors associated with maternal influenza immunization decision-making. Evidence of immunization history and message framing effects.

Authors:  Paula M Frew; Lauren E Owens; Diane S Saint-Victor; Samantha Benedict; Siyu Zhang; Saad B Omer
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2014-11-06       Impact factor: 3.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.