| Literature DB >> 35110674 |
Jiaxi Peng1, Huijie Lu2, Jiaxi Zhang3, Yongcong Shao1, Lei Wang4, Jing Lv5.
Abstract
The current study explores the effect of nightshift work on the decision-making competence and performance of the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) and analyzes whether individual differences in the need for cognition (NFC) can moderate this effect. A total of 107 female nurses were recruited to complete the decision-making competence scale and IGT at two times, after a night shift and after a day shift. The results revealed that the IGT scores and decision-making competence of nurses after nightshift work significantly declined, and also that the decrease in decision-making competence was related to the nurses' performance of the IGT. Additionally, the decreasing degree of IGT and decision-making competence scores of the high-NFC group were significantly lower than those of the low-NFC group after nightshift work. In can be concluded that the decrease in decision-making competence which was related with poor decision-making due to nightshift work. NFC moderated the effect of nightshift work on decision-making.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35110674 PMCID: PMC8810797 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-05843-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Differences in fatigue, IGT, and A-DMC scores in the day and night shifts (n = 107).
| Day shift | Night shift | F | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fatigue | 1.79 ± 1.18 | 4.21 ± 1.36 | 188.46** |
| IGT total score | 16.06 ± 29.16 | − 5.27 ± 31.71 | 27.77** |
| Score in IGT block 1 | − 3.92 ± 7.54 | − 3.23 ± 7.07 | 3.01 |
| Score in IGT block 2 | 1.79 ± 7.89 | − 1.20 ± 7.17 | 7.57* |
| Score in IGT block 3 | 5.08 ± 8.33 | − 0.60 ± 9.90 | 20.56** |
| Score in IGT block 4 | 6.35 ± 9.92 | 0.19 ± 9.55 | 23.66** |
| Score in IGT block 5 | 4.65 ± 10.62 | − 0.58 ± 10.11 | 16.33** |
| DR | 0.64 ± 0.17 | 0.59 ± 0.20 | 5.36* |
| SC | 3.99 ± 1.00 | 3.92 ± 0.82 | 0.32 |
| RP | 0.71 ± 0.09 | 0.68 ± 0.10 | 5.84* |
| SN | 0.37 ± 0.33 | 0.37 ± 0.31 | 0.04 |
| DR | 0.64 ± 0.17 | 0.59 ± 0.20 | 5.36* |
| UOC | 0.86 ± 0.11 | 0.85 ± 0.10 | 1.28 |
IGT Iowa Gambling Task, RF resistance to framing, SC resistance to sunk costs, RP consistency in risk perception, SN recognizing social norms, DR applying decision rules, UOC under/overconfidence.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
Correlation analysis of the changes in fatigue, IGT scores, and A-DMC after night shift (n = 107).
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. ∆Fatigue | |||||||
| 2. ∆IGT score | − 0.26** | ||||||
| 3. ∆RF | − 0.24* | 0.36** | |||||
| 4. ∆SN | − 0.19* | 0.02 | 0.31** | ||||
| 5. ∆UOC | − 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.14 | 0.14 | |||
| 6. ∆DR | − 0.31** | 0.26** | 0.40** | 0.22* | 0.12 | ||
| 7. ∆RP | − 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.14 | − 0.10 | − 0.12 | 0.09 | |
| 8. ∆SC | − 0.09 | 0.13 | 0.19* | 0.22* | 0.27* | 0.16 | − 0.22* |
IGT Iowa Gambling Task, RF resistance to framing, SC resistance to sunk costs, RP consistency in risk perception, SN recognizing social norms, DR applying decision rules, UOC under/overconfidence.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
Changes in fatigue, IGT scores, and A-DMC in Low and High NFC groups.
| Low NFC (n = 53) | High NFC (n = 54) | t | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ∆Fatigue | − 2.68 ± 1.87 | − 2.15 ± 1.74 | − 1.52 |
| ∆IGT score | 34.87 ± 45.74 | 7.74 ± 32.27 | 3.55** |
| ∆RF | 0.36 ± 0.75 | 0.03 ± 0.73 | 2.34* |
| ∆SN | 0.02 ± 0.44 | 0 ± 0.40 | 0.19 |
| ∆UOC | 0.01 ± 0.14 | 0.02 ± 0.12 | − 0.19 |
| ∆DR | 0.11 ± 0.23 | − 0.01 ± 0.22 | 2.86* |
| ∆RP | 0.05 ± 0.16 | 0.01 ± 0.11 | 1.29 |
| ∆SC | 0.17 ± 0.90 | − 0.03 ± 1.48 | 0.86 |
IGT Iowa Gambling Task, RF resistance to framing, SC resistance to sunk costs, RP consistency in risk perception, SN recognizing social norms, DR applying decision rules, UOC under/overconfidence.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
Correlation analysis of the changes in fatigue, IGT scores, and A-DMC in Low and High NFC groups.
| ∆IGT score | ∆RF | ∆SN | ∆UOC | ∆DR | ∆RP | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ∆Fatigue | − 0.27* | − 0.33* | − 0.19 | − 0.09 | −.28* | 0.13 | − 0.19 |
| ∆IGT score | 0.30* | 0.04 | − 0.13 | 0.23+ | − 0.01 | 0.16 | |
| ∆Fatigue | − 0.13 | − 0.15 | − 0.17 | 0.03 | 0.14 | − 0.10 | − 0.01 |
| ∆IGT score | 0.35** | − 0.08 | 0.28* | 0.14 | − 0.06 | 0.11 | |
IGT Iowa Gambling Task, RF resistance to framing, SC resistance to sunk costs, RP consistency in risk perception, SN recognizing social norms, DR applying decision rules, UOC under/overconfidence.
*p < 0.05; +p < 0.1.