Abstract
In decisions under objective risk conditions information about the decision options’ possible outcomes and the rules for outcomes’ occurrence are provided. Thus, deciders can base decision-making strategies on probabilistic laws. In many laboratory decision-making tasks, choosing the option with the highest winning probability in all trials (=maximization strategy) is probabilistically regarded the most rational behavior. However, individuals often behave less optimal, especially in case the individuals have lower cognitive functions or in case no feedback about consequences is provided in the situation. It is still unclear which cognitive functions particularly predispose individuals for using successful strategies and which strategies profit from feedback. We investigated 195 individuals with two decision-making paradigms, the Game of Dice Task (GDT) (with and without feedback), and the Card Guessing Game. Thereafter, participants reported which strategies they had applied. Interaction effects (feedback × strategy), effect sizes, and uncorrected single group comparisons suggest that feedback in the GDT tended to be more beneficial to individuals reporting exploratory strategies (e.g., use intuition). In both tasks, the self-reported use of more principled and more rational strategies was accompanied by better decision-making performance and better performances in reasoning and executive functioning tasks. The strategy groups did not significantly differ in most short-term and working-memory tasks. Thus, particularly individual differences in reasoning and executive functions seem to predispose individuals toward particular decision-making strategies. Feedback seems to be useful for individuals who rather explore the decision-making situation instead of following a certain plan.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Appelt KC, Milch KF, Handgraaf MJJ, Weber EU (2011) The decision making individual differences inventory and guidelines for the study of individual differences in judgment and decision-making research. Judgm Decis Mak 6:252–262
Baddeley A (2012) Working memory: theories, models, and controversies. Annu Rev Psychol 63:1–29. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422
Baddeley AD, Hitch G (1974) Working memory. In: Bower GA (ed) The psychology of learning and motivation. Academic Press, New York, pp 47–89
Bauer P, Bauer MM (1994) Testing equivalence simultaneously for location and dispersion of two normally distributed populations. Biom J 36:643–660. doi:10.1002/bimj.4710360602
Bayard S, Raffard S, Gely-Nargeot M-C (2011) Do facets of self-reported impulsivity predict decision-making under ambiguity and risk? Evidence from a community sample. Psychiatry Res 190:322–326. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2011.06.013
Bechara A (2005) Decision making, impulse control and loss of willpower to resist drugs: a neurocognitive perspective. Nat Neurosci 8:1458–1463. doi:10.1038/nn1584
Bechara A, Damasio AR (2005) The somatic marker hypothesis: a neural theory of economic decision. Games Econ Behav 52:336–372. doi:10.1016/j.geb.2004.06.010
Bechara A, Damasio AR, Damasio H, Anderson SW (1994) Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition 50:7–15. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3
Bechara A, Damasio H, Tranel D, Damasio AR (1997) Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science 275:1293–1295. doi:10.1126/science.275.5304.1293
Bechara A, Damasio H, Damasio AR (2003) Role of the amygdala in decision-making. Ann N Y Acad Sci 985:356–369. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2003.tb07094.x
Beglinger LJ et al (2008) Obsessive and compulsive symptoms in prediagnosed Huntington’s disease. J Clin Psychiatry 69:1758–1765. doi:10.1016/0010-440X(95)90092-A
Boller JK et al (2014) Decision-making under risk is improved by both dopaminergic medication and subthalamic stimulation in Parkinson’s disease. Exp Neurol 254:70–77. doi:10.1016/j.expneurol.2014.01.005
Brand M (2008) Does the feedback from previous trials influence current decisions? A study on the role of feedback processing in making decisions under explicit risk conditions. J Neuropsychol 2:431–443. doi:10.1348/174866407x220607
Brand M, Schiebener J (2013) Interactions of age and cognitive functions in predicting decision making under risky conditions over the life span. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 35:9–23. doi:10.1080/13803395.2012.740000
Brand M et al (2004) Decision-making impairments in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Behav Neurol 15:77–85. doi:10.1155/2004/578354
Brand M, Fujiwara E, Borsutzky S, Kalbe E, Kessler J, Markowitsch HJ (2005) Decision-making deficits of Korsakoff patients in a new gambling task with explicit rules: associations with executive functions. Neuropsychology 19:267–277. doi:10.1037/0894-4105.19.3.267
Brand M, Labudda K, Markowitsch HJ (2006) Neuropsychological correlates of decision-making in ambiguous and risky situations. Neural Netw 19:1266–1276. doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2006.03.001
Brand M, Heinze K, Labudda K, Markowitsch HJ (2008) The role of strategies in deciding advantageously in ambiguous and risky situations. Cogn Process 9:159–173. doi:10.1007/s10339-008-0204-4
Brand M, Laier C, Pawlikowski M, Markowitsch HJ (2009) Decision making with and without feedback: the role of intelligence, strategies, executive functions, and cognitive styles. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 31:984–998. doi:10.1080/13803390902776860
Brand M, Schiebener J, Pertl M-T, Delazer M (2014) Know the risk, take the win: how executive functions and probability processing influence advantageous decision making under risk conditions. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 36:914–929. doi:10.1080/13803395.2014.955783
Braver TS, Cohen JD, Nystrom LE, Jonides J, Smith EE, Noll DC (1997) A parametric study of prefrontal cortex involvement in human working memory. Neuroimage 5:49–62. doi:10.1006/nimg.1996.0247
Brevers D, Cleeremans A, Bechara A, Greisen M, Kornreich C, Verbanck P, Noël X (2012) Impaired metacognitive capacities in individuals with problem gambling. J Gambl Stud. doi:10.1007/s10899-012-9348-3
Buelow MT (2014) Predicting performance on the Columbia card task effects of personality characteristics, mood, and executive functions. Assessment. doi:10.1177/1073191114539383
Chen X et al (2014) Decision-making impairments in breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen. Horm Behav 66:449–456. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2014.07.005
Cokely ET, Kelley CM (2009) Cognitive abilities and superior decision making under risk: a protocol analysis and process model evaluation. Judgm Decis Mak 4:20–33. doi:10.1016/j.jbankfin.2009.04.001
Damasio AR (1994) Descartes’ error: emotion, reason, and the human brain. Grosset/Putnam, New York
Delazer M, Sinz H, Zamarian L, Benke T (2007) Decision-making with explicit and stable rules in mild Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychologia 45:1632–1641. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.01.006
Delazer M et al (2009) Decision making under risk and under ambiguity in Parkinson’s disease. Neuropsychologia 47:1901–1908. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.02.034
Dirnberger G, Jahanshahi M (2013) Executive dysfunction in Parkinson’s disease: a review. J Neuropsychol 7:193–224. doi:10.1111/jnp.12028
Donati MA, Panno A, Chiesi F (2014) A mediation model to explain decision making under conditions of risk among adolescents: the role of fluid intelligence and probabilistic reasoning. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 36:588–595. doi:10.1080/13803395.2014.918091
Dunn BD, Dalgleish T, Lawrence AD (2006) The somatic marker hypothesis: a critical evaluation. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 30:239–271. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.07.001
Euteneuer F et al (2009) Dissociation of decision-making under ambiguity and decision-making under risk in patients with Parkinson’s disease: a neuropsychological and psychophysiological study. Neuropsychologia 47:2882–2890. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.06.014
Evans JS (2003) In two minds: dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends Cogn Sci 7:454–459. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.012
Figner B, Weber EU (2011) Who takes risks when and why? Determinants of risk taking. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 20:211–216. doi:10.1177/0963721411415790
Figner B, Mackinlay RJ, Wilkening F, Weber EU (2009) Affective and deliberative processes in risky choice: age differences in risk taking in the Columbia card task. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 35:709–730. doi:10.1037/a0014983
Gal I, Baron J (1996) Understanding repeated simple choices. Think Reason 2:81–98
Gathmann B, Pawlikowski M, Schöler T, Brand M (2014) Performing a secondary executive task with affective stimuli interferes with decision making under risk conditions. Cogn Process 15:113–126. doi:10.1007/s10339-013-0584-y
Gathmann B, Schiebener J, Wolf OT, Brand M (2015) Monitoring supports performance in a dual-task paradigm involving a risky decision-making task and a working memory task. Front Psychol 6:142. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00142
Gray JR, Chabris CF, Braver TS (2003) Neural mechanisms of general fluid intelligence. Nat Neurosci 6:316–322. doi:10.1038/nn1014
Hegarty M, Kozhevnikov M (1999) Types of visual–spatial representations and mathematical problem solving. J Educ Psychol 91:684. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.684
Horn W (1983) Leistungsprüfsystem [German intelligence test battery]. Hogrefe, Göttingen
Imhoff R, Schmidt AF, Gerstenberg F (2013) Exploring the interplay of trait self-control and ego depletion: empirical evidence for ironic effects. Eur J Pers 28:413–424. doi:10.1002/per.1899
Jurado M, Rosselli M (2007) The elusive nature of executive functions: a review of our current understanding. Neuropsychol Rev 17:213–233. doi:10.1007/s11065-007-9040-z
Kahneman D (2003) A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. Am Psychol 58:697–720. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697
Maia TV, McClelland JL (2004) A reexamination of the evidence for the somatic marker hypothesis: What participants really know in the Iowa gambling task. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:16075–16080. doi:10.1073/pnas.0406666101
Metcalfe J, Mischel W (1999) A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: dynamics of willpower. Psychol Rev 106:3–19. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.106.1.3
Miyake A, Friedman NP (2012) The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions: four general conclusions. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 21:8–14. doi:10.1177/0963721411429458
Miyake A, Friedman NP, Emerson MJ, Witzki AH, Howerter A, Wager TD (2000) The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “Frontal Lobe” tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cogn Psychol 41:49–100. doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
Nakagawa S (2004) A farewell to Bonferroni: the problems of low statistical power and publication bias. Behav Ecol 15:1044–1045. doi:10.1093/beheco/arh107
Nelson HE (1976) A Modified Card Sorting Test sensitive to frontal lobe defects. Cortex 12:313–324. doi:10.1016/s0010-9452(76)80035-4
Norman DA, Shallice T (1986) Attention to action: willed and automatic control of behavior. In: Davidson RJ, Schwartz GE, Shapiro D (eds) Consciousness and self-regulation. Springer, New York, pp 1–18
Perneger TV (1998) What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. BMJ 316:1236–1238. doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7139.1236
Rogers RD et al (1999a) Dissociable deficits in the decision-making cognition of chronic amphetamine abusers, opiate abusers, patients with focal damage to prefrontal cortex, and tryptophan-depleted normal volunteers: evidence for monoaminergic mechanisms. Neuropsychopharmacology 20:322–339. doi:10.1016/s0893-133x(98)00091-8
Rogers RD, Owen AM, Middleton HC, Williams EJ, Pickard JD, Sahakian BJ, Robbins TW (1999b) Choosing between small, likely rewards and large, unlikely rewards activates inferior and orbital prefrontal cortex. J Neurosci 20:9029–9038
Rosen J, Brand M, Polzer C, Ebersbach G, Kalbe E (2013) Moral decision-making and theory of mind in patients with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. Neuropsychology 27:562–572. doi:10.1037/a0033595
Schiebener J, Brand M (2015) Decision making under objective risk conditions—a review of cognitive and emotional correlates, strategies, feedback processing, and external influences. Neuropsychol Rev 25:171–198. doi:10.1007/s11065-015-9285-x
Schiebener J, Zamarian L, Delazer M, Brand M (2011) Executive functions, categorization of probabilities, and learning from feedback: What does really matter for decision making under explicit risk conditions? J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 33:1025–1039. doi:10.1080/13803395.2011.595702
Schiebener J, Wegmann E, Pawlikowski M, Brand M (2012) Anchor effects in decision making can be reduced by the interaction between goal monitoring and the level of the decision maker’s executive functions. Cogn Process 13:321–332. doi:10.1007/s10339-012-0522-4
Schiebener J, Wegmann E, Pawlikowski M, Brand M (2013) Supporting decisions under risk: explicit advice differentially affects people according to their working memory performance and executive functioning. Neurosci Decis Mak 1:9–18. doi:10.2478/ndm-2013-0002
Schiebener J, Wegmann E, Gathmann B, Laier C, Pawlikowski M, Brand M (2014a) Among three different executive functions, general executive control ability is a key predictor of decision making under objective risk. Front Psychol 5:1386. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01386
Schiebener J, Wegmann E, Pawlikowski M, Brand M (2014b) Effects of goals on decisions under risk conditions: goals can help to make better choices, but relatively high goals increase risk-taking J. Cogn Psychol 26:473–485. doi:10.1080/20445911.2014.903254
Schoofs D, Preuss D, Wolf OT, Preuß D (2008) Psychosocial stress induces working memory impairments in an n-back paradigm. Psychoneuroendocrinology 33:643–653. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2008.02.004
Shanks DR, Tunney RJ, McCarthy JD (2002) A re-examination of probability matching and rational choice. J Behav Decis Mak 15:233–250. doi:10.1002/bdm.413
Sinz H, Zamarian L, Benke T, Wenning GK, Delazer M (2008) Impact of ambiguity and risk on decision making in mild Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychologia 46:2043–2055. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.02.002
Smith EE, Jonides J (1999) Storage and executive processes in the frontal lobes. Science 283:1657–1661. doi:10.1126/science.283.5408.1657
Stanovich KE, West RF (2003) Is probability matching smart? Associations between probabilistic choices and cognitive ability. Mem Cogn 31:243–251. doi:10.3758/BF03194383
Starcke K, Tuschen-Caffier B, Markowitsch HJ, Brand M (2010) Dissociation of decisions in ambiguous and risky situations in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychiatry Res 175:114–120. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2008.10.022
Starcke K, Pawlikowski M, Wolf OT, Altstötter-Gleich C, Brand M (2011) Decision making under risk conditions is susceptible to interference by a secondary executive task. Cogn Process 12:177–182. doi:10.1007/s10339-010-0387-3
van Garderen D (2006) Spatial visualization, visual imagery, and mathematical problem solving of students with varying abilities. J Learn Disabil 39:496–506. doi:10.1177/00222194060390060201
Wechsler D (1987) Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised Manual. The Psychological Corporation, San Antonio
Weller JA, Fisher PA (2013) Decision-making deficits among maltreated children. Child Maltreat 18:184–194. doi:10.1177/1077559512467846
Weller JA, Irwin P, Denburg NL, Levin IP (2011) Trajectory of risky decision making for potential gains and losses from ages 5 to 85. J Behav Decis Mak 344:331–344. doi:10.1002/bdm
Werheid K, Hoppe C, Thöne A, Müller U, Müngersdorf M, von Cramon DY (2002) The adaptive digit ordering test: clinical application, reliability, and validity of a verbal working memory test. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 17:547–565
Xi C et al (2014) Theory of mind and decision-making processes are impaired in Parkinson’s disease. Behav Brain Res. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2014.11.035
Yao YW et al (2014) Failure to utilize feedback causes decision-making deficits among excessive Internet gamers. Psychiatry Res 219:583–588. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2014.06.033
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
Additional information
Handling Editor: Katsumi Watanabe, University of Tokyo.
Reviewers: Takehiro Minamoto, Kyoto University; Hiroyuki Tsubomi, University of Tokyo.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schiebener, J., Brand, M. Self-reported strategies in decisions under risk: role of feedback, reasoning abilities, executive functions, short-term-memory, and working memory. Cogn Process 16, 401–416 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-015-0665-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-015-0665-1