Immediate gain is long-term loss: Are there foresighted decision makers in the Iowa Gambling Task?

BackgroundThe Somatic Marker Hypothesis suggests that normal subjects are "foreseeable" and ventromedial prefrontal patients are "myopic" in making decisions, as the behavior shown in the Iowa Gambling Task. The present study questions previous findings because of the existing confounding between long-term outcome (expected value, EV) and gain-loss frequency variables in the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT). A newly and symmetrically designed gamble, namely the Soochow Gambling Task (SGT), with a high-contrast EV between bad (A, B) and good (C, D) decks, is conducted to clarify the issue about IGT confounding. Based on the prediction of EV (a basic assumption of IGT), participants should prefer to choose good decks C and D rather than bad decks A and B in SGT. In contrast, according to the prediction of gain-loss frequency, subjects should prefer the decks A and B because they possessed relatively the high-frequency gain.MethodsThe present experiment was performed by 48 participants (24 males and 24 females). Most subjects are college students recruited from different schools. Each subject played the computer version SGT first and completed a questionnaire for identifying their final preference. The IGT experimental procedure was mostly followed to assure a similar condition of decision uncertainty.ResultsThe SGT experiment demonstrated that the prediction of gain-loss frequency is confirmed. Most subjects preferred to choose the bad decks A and B than good decks C and D. The learning curve and questionnaire data indicate that subjects can not "hunch" the EV throughout the game. Further analysis of the effect of previous choice demonstrated that immediate gain increases the probability to stay at the same deck.ConclusionSGT provides a balanced structure to clarify the confounding inside IGT and demonstrates that gain-loss frequency rather than EV guides decision makers in these high-ambiguity gambles. Additionally, the choice behavior is mostly following the "gain-stay, lose-randomize" strategy to cope with the uncertain situation. As demonstrated in SGT, immediate gain can bring about a long-term loss under uncertainty. This empirical result may explain some shortsighted behaviors in real life.

[1]  C. B. Ferster,et al.  Schedules of reinforcement , 1957 .

[2]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Effect of instruction in expected value on optimality of gambling decisions , 1969 .

[3]  H. Rachlin Introduction to modern behaviorism , 1970 .

[4]  R J Herrnstein,et al.  Formal properties of the matching law. , 1974, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[5]  B. Schwartz Psychology of Learning and Behavior , 1978 .

[6]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[7]  A C Catania,et al.  Preference for free choice over forced choice in pigeons. , 1980, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[8]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[9]  E. Rolls,et al.  Emotion-related learning in patients with social and emotional changes associated with frontal lobe damage. , 1994, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[10]  A. Damasio,et al.  Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex , 1994, Cognition.

[11]  A. Damasio Descartes’ Error. Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. New York (Grosset/Putnam) 1994. , 1994 .

[12]  G. Fricchione Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain , 1995 .

[13]  A. Damasio,et al.  Failure to respond autonomically to anticipated future outcomes following damage to prefrontal cortex. , 1996, Cerebral cortex.

[14]  A. Damasio,et al.  Deciding Advantageously Before Knowing the Advantageous Strategy , 1997, Science.

[15]  H. Damasio,et al.  Dissociation Of Working Memory from Decision Making within the Human Prefrontal Cortex , 1998, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[16]  Terry E. Goldberg,et al.  Operant conditioning and the orbitofrontal cortex in schizophrenic patients: unexpected evidence for intact functioning , 1998, Schizophrenia Research.

[17]  Heidi Aase,et al.  Altered reinforcement mechanisms in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder , 1998, Behavioural Brain Research.

[18]  M. Posner The Brain and Emotion , 1999, Nature Medicine.

[19]  Gregory P. Lee,et al.  Different Contributions of the Human Amygdala and Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex to Decision-Making , 1999, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[20]  Paul Slovic,et al.  The Springs of Action: Affective and Analytical Information Processing in Choice , 2000 .

[21]  H. Damasio,et al.  Characterization of the decision-making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions. , 2000, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[22]  N. North,et al.  Decision making in patients with spinal cord damage: afferent feedback and the somatic marker hypothesis , 2001, Neuropsychologia.

[23]  Atanasios Mitropoulos An experiment on the value of structural information in a 2×2 repeated game , 2002 .

[24]  Alfonso Caramazza,et al.  Do somatic markers mediate decisions on the gambling task? , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[25]  J. Panksepp Damasio's error? , 2003 .

[26]  R E O'Carroll,et al.  Decision making in humans: the effect of manipulating the central noradrenergic system , 2003, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[27]  Kazuo Shigemasu,et al.  Application of the somatic marker hypothesis to individual differences in decision making , 2003, Biological Psychology.

[28]  D. Kahneman Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics , 2003 .

[29]  W. Overman,et al.  Performance on the IOWA card task by adolescents and adults , 2004, Neuropsychologia.

[30]  James L. McClelland,et al.  A reexamination of the evidence for the somatic marker hypothesis: what participants really know in the Iowa gambling task. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[31]  E. Rolls,et al.  The functional neuroanatomy of the human orbitofrontal cortex: evidence from neuroimaging and neuropsychology , 2004, Progress in Neurobiology.

[32]  H. D. Critchley,et al.  Social and motivational functioning is not critically dependent on feedback of autonomic responses: neuropsychological evidence from patients with pure autonomic failure , 2004, Neuropsychologia.

[33]  E. Crone,et al.  Developmental Changes in Real Life Decision Making: Performance on a Gambling Task Previously Shown to Depend on the Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex , 2004, Developmental neuropsychology.

[34]  J. Meador-Woodruff,et al.  Neurocognitive measures of prefrontal cortical dysfunction in schizophrenia , 2004, Schizophrenia Research.

[35]  E. Crone,et al.  Heart rate and skin conductance analysis of antecendents and consequences of decision making. , 2004, Psychophysiology.

[36]  Jonathan W. Leland,et al.  Experimental tests of the Somatic Marker hypothesis , 2005, Games Econ. Behav..

[37]  Benedicto Crespo-Facorro,et al.  Prefrontal cognitive functions in stabilized first-episode patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders: A dissociation between dorsolateral and orbitofrontal functioning , 2005, Schizophrenia Research.

[38]  Rosemary Tannock,et al.  Executive and motivational processes in adolescents with Attention-Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) , 2005, Behavioral and Brain Functions.

[39]  B. Bogerts,et al.  Deficit in decision making in catatonic schizophrenia: An exploratory study , 2005, Psychiatry Research.

[40]  Keith H. Nuechterlein,et al.  Schizophrenia patients demonstrate a distinctive pattern of decision-making impairment on the Iowa Gambling Task , 2005, Schizophrenia Research.

[41]  O. Turnbull,et al.  Artificial time constraints on the Iowa Gambling Task: The effects on behavioural performance and subjective experience , 2005, Brain and Cognition.

[42]  Richard J. Tunney,et al.  Some decks are better than others: The effect of reinforcer type and task instructions on learning in the Iowa Gambling Task , 2006, Brain and Cognition.

[43]  P. Killeen,et al.  Behavioral variability, elimination of responses, and delay-of-reinforcement gradients in SHR and WKY rats , 2007, Behavioral and Brain Functions.

[44]  Merrill Hiscock,et al.  The Simulated Gambling Paradigm Applied to Young Adults: An Examination of University Students' Performance , 2006, Applied neuropsychology.

[45]  A. Lawrence,et al.  The somatic marker hypothesis: A critical evaluation , 2006, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[46]  J. Hsieh,et al.  Is deck B a disadvantageous deck in the Iowa Gambling Task? , 2007, Behavioral and Brain Functions.

[47]  Martin Guha,et al.  Oxford Dictionary of Psychology (2nd edition) , 2006 .

[48]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[49]  Eldad Yechiam,et al.  Iowa Gambling Task in schizophrenia: A review and new data in patients with schizophrenia and co-occurring cannabis use disorders , 2007, Schizophrenia Research.

[50]  Yao-Chu Chiu,et al.  Is deck C an advantageous deck in the Iowa Gambling Task? , 2007, Behavioral and Brain Functions.

[51]  Richard L. Peterson,et al.  Inside the Investor's Brain: The Power of Mind Over Money , 2007 .

[52]  D. Martino,et al.  Neuropsychological frontal impairments and negative symptoms in schizophrenia , 2007, Psychiatry Research.

[53]  Jerry L. Grenard,et al.  Affective decision-making deficits, linked to a dysfunctional ventromedial prefrontal cortex, revealed in 10th grade Chinese adolescent binge drinkers , 2008, Neuropsychologia.

[54]  Jerome R. Busemeyer,et al.  Comparison of Decision Learning Models Using the Generalization Criterion Method , 2008, Cogn. Sci..