| Literature DB >> 25191295 |
Mathieu Cassotti1, Ania Aïte2, Anaïs Osmont2, Olivier Houdé1, Grégoire Borst2.
Abstract
Developmental studies using the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) or child-friendly adaptations of the IGT converged in showing that children and adolescents exhibit a strong bias in favor of disadvantageous choices whereas adults learn to decide advantageously during the course of the task. In the present article, we reviewed developmental studies that used the IGT or child-friendly adaptations of the IGT to show how these findings provide a better understanding of the processes involved in decision-making under uncertainty. For instance, developmental studies have underlined that until late adolescence, the dominant strategy is to focus only on the frequency of punishment and to choose among options with infrequent losses. Indeed, school-aged children and adolescents' choices in the IGT seem to be guided by the loss frequency leading them to fail in distinguishing between advantageous and disadvantageous options. In addition, recent developmental studies revealed that adults switch less often after losses than school-aged children and adolescents. These findings suggest that psychological tolerance to loss may facilitate learning the characteristics of each option, which in turn improves the ability to choose advantageously. In conclusion, developmental studies help us refine our understanding of decision-making.Entities:
Keywords: Iowa Gambling Task; children and adolescents; developmental psychology; emotion-based learning; executive control; inhibition (psychology); loss aversion
Year: 2014 PMID: 25191295 PMCID: PMC4138612 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00915
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Example of developmental studies on decision-making under ambiguity.
| Aïte et al., | 44 | 7–32 | SGT (100) | Gain: 10–30(80%) | Gain: 10–30(80%) | Gain: 105(20%) | Gain: 55(20%) | • Children and adolescents were only guided by loss-frequency while adults managed to choose advantageously only when the frequency of loss was low. |
| Loss: 105(20%) | Loss: 55(20%) | Loss: 10–30(80%) | Loss: 10–30(80%) | |||||
| Net score: −50 | Net score: +50 | Net score: +50 | Net score: −50 | |||||
| • Adults used more “win-stay” and “loss-stay” strategies. A negative correlation was observed between the proportion of “loss-stay” strategy and disadvantageous selection in option A. | ||||||||
| Cassotti et al., | 84 | 9–28 | IGT (100) | Gain: 8–12(100%) | Gain: 8–12(100%) | Gain: 4–6(100%) | Gain: 4–6(100%) | • Adults switched less often after gains and persevered more after loss compared to children and adolescents. |
| Loss: 15–35(50%) | Loss: 125(10%) | Loss: 2–8(50%) | Loss: 25(10%) | |||||
| Net score: −50 | Net score: −50 | Net score: +50 | Net score: +50 | |||||
| • Children and adolescents focused on options with low loss-frequency. | ||||||||
| Crone et al., | 140 | 7–15 | HDT (150) | Gain: 4(100%) | Gain: 4(100%) | Gain: 2(100%) | Gain: 2(100%) | • Only the BD version revealed developmental differences with younger children (7–9 years old) failing to choose advantageously. |
| Loss: 8–12(50%) | Loss: 50(10%) | Loss: 1–3(50%) | Loss: 10(10%) | |||||
| AACC | Net score: −10 | Net score: −10 | Net score: +10 | Net score: +10 | ||||
| AC | Gain: 4(100%) | Gain: 2(100%) | • The number of options available did not influence performances (i.e., no difference between AACC and AC). | |||||
| Loss: 8–12(50%) | Loss: 1–3(50%) | |||||||
| Net score: −10 | Net score: +10 | |||||||
| BD | Gain: 4(100%) | Gain: 2(100%) | • Participants used “win-stay” and “loss-shift” strategies. | |||||
| Loss: 50(10%) | Loss: 10(10%) | |||||||
| Net score: −10 | Net score: +10 | |||||||
| Crone and van der Molen, | 331 | 6–25 | HDT (200) | Gain: 4(100%) | Gain: 4(100%) | Gain: 2(100%) | Gain: 2(100%) | • Adults chose advantageously from the 3rd block. |
| Loss: 8–12(50%) | Loss: 50(10%) | Loss: 1–3(50%) | Loss: 10(10%) | • Children failed to disengage from disadvantageous options. | ||||
| Net score: −10 | Net score: −10 | Net score: +10 | Net score: +10 | |||||
| • Adolescents (13–15 years old) started to show a slight advantageous preference at the end of the task. | ||||||||
| • At every age there is a preference for low-loss frequency options. | ||||||||
| Crone and van der Molen, | 81 | 8–18 | HDT (100) | Gain: 4(100%) | Gain: 4(100%) | Gain: 2(100%) | Gain: 2(100%) | • Only adolescents (16–18 years old) showed an increase number of advantageous choices and larger anticipatory autonomic responses for frequent-loss options than for infrequent-loss options. |
| Loss: 8–12(50%) | Loss: 50(10%) | Loss: 1–3(50%) | Loss: 10(10%) | |||||
| Net score: −10 | Net score: −10 | Net score: +10 | Net score: +10 | |||||
| • Similar autonomic responses (SCRs and HR) to gains and losses were observed for each age group. | ||||||||
| van Duijvenvoorde et al., | 94 | 13–15 | HDT (200) | Gain: 4(100%) | Gain: 4(100%) | Gain: 2(100%) | Gain: 2(100%) | • At the end of the task, adolescents focused on options with low loss-frequency (i.e., B and D). |
| Loss: 8–12(50%) | Loss: 50(10%) | Loss: 1–3(50%) | Loss: 10(10%) | |||||
| Net score: −10 | Net score: −10 | Net score: +10 | Net score: +10 |
Each line refers to authors, age and number of participants, task design and major findings of the study.