Mind & Society

, 8:43 | Cite as

Heterogeneity in choices on Iowa Gambling Task: preference for infrequent–high magnitude punishment



Reward attribute, i.e. long-term versus short-term reward, is the most commonly analyzed choice attribute in Iowa Gambling Task (IGT). The present study (= 45) employs measures of individual differences to explore preferences in IGT choices, based on punishment attribute (frequent versus infrequent punishment) along with the reward attribute. Three questionnaires (rational-experiential information processing style, risk attitude, and maximization regret behavior) were employed to analyze whether preferences were based on reward or on punishment attribute of the IGT choices. The T test indicated a selective preference for punishment, but not for reward attribute. Pearson’s correlation revealed that rational information processing is associated with more choices from infrequent–large punishment decks. Regression analysis indicated that rational information processing, tendency to maximize-experience regret, and risk attitude accounted for selective preferences based on the punishment attribute. Measures employed were unrelated to reward attribute of the IGT choices. Results are explained in terms of choice preference for frequent but smaller magnitude versus infrequent but larger magnitude punishment in IGT.


Decision-making Individual differences Information processing Iowa Gambling Task Reward-punishment 


  1. Bark R, Dieckmann S, Bogerts B, Northoff G (2005) Deficit in decision making in catatonic schizophrenia: an exploratory study. Psychiat Res 134:131–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bateman I, Dent S, Peters E, Slovic P, Starmer C (2006) The Affect Heuristic and the Attractiveness of Simple Gambles. Center for Decision Research and Experimental Economics (CeDEx) Discussion paper series, ISSN: 1749–3293Google Scholar
  3. Bechara A, Damasio H (2002) Decision-making and addiction (part I): impaired activation of somatic states in substance dependent individuals when pondering decisions with negative future consequences. Neuropsychologia 40:1675–1689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bechara A, Damasio A, Damasio H, Anderson S (1994) Insensitivity to future consequence following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition 50:7–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bechara A, Tranel D, Damasio H (2000) Characterization of the decision making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions. Brain 123:2189–2202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen M, Ranganath C (2005) Behavioral and neural predictors of upcoming decisions. Cogn Affect Behav Ne 5(2):117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crone E, Vendel I, Van der Molen M (2003) Decision making in disinhibited adolescents and adults: insensitivity to future consequences or driven by immediate reward? Pers Indiv Differ 35:1625–1641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crone E, Bunge S, Latenstein H, Van der Molen M (2005) Charaterization of children’s decision making: sensitivity to punishment frequency, not task complexity. Child Neuropsychol 11:245–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Damasio A (1994) Descartes error. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis C, Patte K, Tweed S, Curtis C (2007) Personality traits associated with decision making deficits. Pers Indiv Differ 42:279–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunn B, Dalgleish T, Lawrence A (2006) The somatic marker hypothesis: a critical review. Neurosci and Biobehav R 30:239–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Epstein S (1983) The unconscious, the preconscious and the self-concept. In: Suls J, Greenwald A (eds) Psychological perspectives on the self Hillsdale, vol 2. Erlbaum, NJ, pp 219–247Google Scholar
  13. Epstein S (2003) Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality. In: Millon T, Lerner MJ (eds) Comprehensive handbook of psychology, vol 5: personality and social psychology. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp 159–184Google Scholar
  14. Epstein S, Pacini R, Denes-Raj V, Heier H (1996) Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. J Pers Soc Psychol 71:390–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fernie G, Tunney RJ (2006) Some decks are better than others: the effect of reinforcer type and task instructions on learning in the Iowa Gambling Task. Brain Cogn 60:94–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fishbein D, Eldreth D, Matochik J, Isenberg I, Hyde C, London E (2005) Cognitive performance and autonomic reactivity in abstinent drug abusers and nonusers. Exp Clin Psychopharm 13(1):25–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Franken I, Muris P (2005) Individual differences in decision making. Pers Indiv Differ 39:991–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fukui H, Murai T, Fukuyama H, Hayashi T, Hanakawa T (2005) Functional activity related to risk anticipation during performance of the Iowa gambling task. NeuroImage 24:253–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gray J (1987) The psychology of fear and stress. University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Lin C, Chiu Y, Lee P, Hsieh J (2007) Is deck B a disadvantageous deck in the Iowa Gambling Task? Behav Brain Funct 3:16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Loewenstein G, Prelec D (1992) Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation. Q J Econ 107(2):573–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Loewenstein G, Weber E, Hsee C, Welch N (2001) Risk as a feelings. Psychol Bull 127:267–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. MacPherson S, Phillips L, Della Sala S (2002) Age, executive function, and social decision making: a dorsolateral prefrontal theory of cognitive aging. Psychol Aging 17(4):598–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Norris P, Epstein S (2003) Objective and subjective correlates of an extension of the rational-experiential inventory (Unpublished study)Google Scholar
  25. Overman W, Frassrand K, Ansel S, Trawalter S, Bies B, Redmond A (2004) Performance on the IOWA card task by adolescents and adults. Neuropsychologia 42:1838–1851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pacini R, Epstein S (1999) The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. J Pers Soc Psychol 76:972–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Peters E, Slovic P (2000) The springs of action: affective and analytical information processing in choice. Person Soc Psychol B 26(12):1465–1475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ritter L, Meador-Woodruff J, Dalack G (2004) Neurocognitive measures of prefrontal cortical dysfunction in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Res 68:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schwartz B (2000) Self determination: the tyranny of freedom. Am Psychol 55:79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schwartz B, Ward A, Monterosso J, Lyubomirsky S, White K, Lehman D (2002) Maximizing versus satisficing: happiness is a matter of choice. J Pers Soc Psychol 83:1178–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shiloh S, Salton E, Sharabi D (2002) Individual differences in rational and intuitive thinking styles as predictors of heuristic responses and framing effects. Pers Indiv Differ 32(3):415–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shiloh S, Shenhav-Sheffer M (2004) Structure of difficulties in mate-selection decisions and its relation to rational and intuitive cognitive styles. Pers Indiv Differ 37:259–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shurman B, Horan W, Nuechterlein K (2005) Schizophrenia patients demonstrate a distinctive pattern of decision-making impairment on the Iowa Gambling Task. Schizophrenia Res 72(2–3):215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Simon H (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Q J Econ 59:99–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Suhr J, Tsanadis J (2007) Affect and personality correlated of Iowa gambling Task. Pers Indiv Differ 43:27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tomb I, Hauser M, Deldin P, Caramazza A (2002) Do somatic markers mediate decisions on gambling task. Nat Neurosci 5:1103–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Toplak M, Jain U, Tannock R (2005) Executive and motivational processes in adolescents with attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Behav Brain Funct 1(1):8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. van Honk J, Hermans E, Putman P, Montagne B, Schutter D (2002) Defective somatic markers in sub-clinical psychopathy. Neuroreport 13:1025–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. van den Bos R, Houx B, Spruijt B (2006) The effect of reward magnitude differences on choosing disadvantageous decks in the Iowa Gambling Task. Biol Psychol 71(2):155–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weber E, Blais A, Betz N (2002) A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. J Behav Decis Making 15:263–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wilder K, Weinberger D, Goldberg T (1998) Operant conditioning and the orbitofrontal cortex in schizophrenic patients: unexpected evidence for intact functioning. Schizophrenia Res 30:169–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Fondazione Rosselli 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Humanities and Social SciencesIndian Institute of Technology BombayMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations