Abstract
The Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) was designed to assess decision-making under conditions of complexity and uncertainty; it is currently one of the most widely used tests to assess decision-making in both experimental and clinical settings. In the original version of the task, participants are given a loan of play money and four decks of cards and are asked to maximize profits. Although any single card unpredictably yields wins/losses, variations in frequency and size of gains/losses ultimately make two decks more advantageous in the long term. Several studies have previously suggested that there may be a sex-related difference in IGT performance. Thus, the present study aimed to explore and quantify sex differences in IGT performance by pooling the results of 110 studies. The meta-analysis revealed that males tend to perform better than females on the classic 100-trial IGT (UMD = 3.381; p < 0.001). Furthermore, the significant heterogeneity observed suggests high variability in the results obtained by individual studies. Results were not affected by publication bias or other moderators. Factors that may contribute to differences in male and female performance are discussed, such as functional sex-related asymmetries in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and amygdala, as well as differences in sensitivity to wins/losses.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Sex differences in psychology and neuropsychology have been a complex and controversial topic of increasing interest in recent years (see Halpern, 2013). Within these fields, sex differences have been explored in numerous areas, such as visuospatial abilities (Voyer et al., 1995), verbal abilities (Hyde & Linn, 1988), working memory (Voyer et al., 2017, 2021), personality traits (Grijalva et al., 2015), temperament (Else-Quest et al., 2006), and self-esteem (Kling et al., 1999). One of the most critical and relevant constructs, due to its impact on day-to-day life, is decision-making.
Decision-making is defined as the process of selecting the most appropriate action from a range of possible actions (Darby & Dickerson, 2017). Although its definition may seem simple, decision-making is an incredibly complex ability that entails a vast number of cognitive processes. Determining the appropriate action to implement in a specific situation requires a series of cognitive operations, starting from the initial motivation required to achieve a given goal. It is then necessary to focus one’s attention toward the chosen option, while simultaneously inhibiting any stimuli that might serve as a distraction or diversion from that goal. The ability to choose the most appropriate action is further influenced by a continuous evaluation of all the likely consequences of the alternative options. Lastly, it is crucial to constantly monitor the conditions under which one is operating; circumstances, consequences, and the goals themselves may change over time, especially in real-life settings (Darby & Dickerson, 2017).
The processes described above fall under the term executive functions. Other than decision-making, they also include impulse control, attention, cognitive flexibility, and working memory (Ozga et al., 2018). Traditionally, executive functions have been categorized into “cold” and “hot” functions. Cold functions are logic-based and emotion-independent (e.g., working memory), whereas hot functions are driven by emotions, motivation, and rewards (Ozga et al., 2018). Decision-making is usually considered a hot cognitive function, given that the individual is asked to make decisions that have potentially rewarding or harmful consequences (Salehinejad et al., 2021).
One of the most widely used tasks to measure decision-making is the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT; Bechara et al., 1994). The task was initially created to evaluate patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) lesions who often experience difficulties in decision-making. Specifically, these patients tend to be unaware of future consequences of their actions and are guided by the most immediate outcomes (Bechara et al., 1994).
In the original version of the task, subjects are given a loan of play money (i.e., $2,000) and four decks of cards of equal size and appearance. The subject is asked to select one card at a time from any one of the four decks for a total of 100 trials. Subjects are told that their goal is to maximize profit and that they are free to choose as many cards from each deck as they wish. Although each single card unpredictably yields wins or losses, the decks are structured so that two decks are ultimately advantageous (i.e., decks C and D) and two are disadvantageous (i.e., decks A and B). The decks differ in terms of both frequency and size of gains/losses; for example, deck A is characterized by smaller but more frequent losses, whereas the losses in deck B are less frequent but of bigger size. In this last example, the deck may seem more advantageous in the short term by yielding higher gains on single cards (i.e., $100 vs $50), but may also include cards with greater losses. Decks C and D ultimately yield higher long-term returns and are therefore considered to be the two advantageous decks (Bechara et al., 2000). Participants who do not learn to prefer the advantageous decks over the disadvantageous ones are considered to exhibit a decision-making impairment. The most common way of quantifying a preference for advantageous/disadvantageous decks is the net IGT score, originally used by Bechara and colleagues (2000). The net score is the difference between the total number of advantageous choices and disadvantageous choices, and is calculated as \(\left(\left(C+D\right)-\left(A+B\right)\right)\). This index allows researchers to obtain an overall measure of task performance regardless of the currency used within the individual studies. In the 100-trial version, the net score ranges from − 100 to 100; positive values are indicative of a higher proportion of advantageous choices, and therefore of a better performance.
Interestingly, several versions of the IGT have been created and used throughout the years. However, research suggests that variables such as type of monetary reward used (i.e., real or fake money), nature of the instructions given to participants, and type of task (i.e., computerized or manual) do not play a significant role in task performance (Bowman & Turnbull, 2003; Bowman et al., 2005; Fernie & Tunney, 2006).
Although the IGT was originally constructed to study patients with VMPFC lesions, over the years it has become the standard for assessing decision-making (Dunn et al., 2006). Contrary to lesioned patients, healthy subjects tend to gradually increase the choices made from the advantageous decks throughout the progression of the task. However, a persistence in choosing riskier decks has been observed not only in patients with brain injuries, but also in a variety of disorders arising from poor impulse control, such as substance abuse and pathological gambling (Brand et al., 2005; Takano et al., 2010).
The IGT’s psychometric properties seem to suggest that it is a multi-trait task measuring functions relating to both problem-solving and the attentional domain (Gansler et al., 2011). Its relationship with other tasks intended to measure executive functions is rather complex. Although several studies have found that it does not seem to correlate with performance on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) (for a review, see Buelow & Suhr, 2009), other have linked perseverative errors in the WCST in normal adults with the risky decision-making component of the IGT (Brand et al., 2007). Furthermore, a study by Pacheco-Colón and colleagues (2019) assessing the measurement invariance across decision-making tasks found that the IGT, the Cups Task, and the Game of Dice Task all seem to measure a single construct, which the authors suggest may represent the ability to make optimal choices that maximize rewards in the presence of risk (Pacheco-Colón et al., 2019). Despite the complex relationship between the IGT and other executive function tasks, taken together the literature seems to indicate that IGT performance is related to various executive function and working memory related tasks (Buelow & Suhr, 2009). Regarding its ecological validity, the previously discussed results obtained in clinical populations suggest a link between this task and real-world clinically relevant risky behavior, such as substance abuse disorders and pathological gambling (Brand et al., 2005; Takano et al., 2010).
Other than identifying well-established differences in decision-making between healthy and clinical populations, recent literature has begun to explore individual differences in IGT performance within the healthy population. Past research has suggested that a factor that may play a role in determining IGT performance is sex. A difference between neurotypical males and females has been reported in several individual studies, suggesting that men tend to choose more advantageous cards than women in the standard 100-trial version of the IGT (for a review, see van den Bos et al., 2013). Although seemingly well-established, only a limited number of individual studies have observed this result, and a systematic assessment of this sex-related difference is lacking.
To further add to this complexity, sex-related differences in decision-making have also been approached by exploring factors and conditions that seem to differentially impact men and women’s performances. For example, acute stress induced through the Trier Social Stress Task has been found to disproportionally alter the performance of men and women (Van den Bos et al., 2009); higher cortisol levels in men were associated with a poorer performance, whereas an inverse relationship was observed in women, suggesting that women may make better long-term decisions than men under acute stress. Moreover, men seem to exhibit greater sensitivity to achievement-related tasks (such as the IGT) in terms of higher cortisol levels, whereas the opposite seems to be true for social rejection (Stroud et al., 2002).
Another factor that has been found to play a role in differentiating male and female decision-making abilities is endogenous testosterone levels. A study by Stanton and colleagues (2011) observed that higher testosterone levels were linked to riskier choices in both men and women; however, this effect was found to be more pronounced in women (Stanton et al., 2011). The decline in performance could be attributed to the suppressive effect of testosterone on cortical regions associated with self-regulation and impulse control, such as the medial orbitofrontal cortex, resulting in behavior characterized by heightened pursuit of rewards and diminished sensitivity to potential consequences (Mehta & Beer, 2010).
Lastly, trait anxiety also seems to differentially impact men and women’s decision-making abilities (de Visser et al., 2010). In men, low and high levels of trait anxiety have both been associated with an impaired IGT performance compared to those with medium levels. On the contrary, IGT performance in females seems to only be hindered by high levels of trait anxiety.
Nonetheless, despite the complexity of the literature on the topic, thus far the exploration of sex-related differences in IGT overall performance has been limited to individual studies using varying experimental paradigms and conditions, but a systematic assessment of the difference between men and women’s IGT performance in the healthy population is still lacking. The present meta-analysis therefore aimed to assess and quantify sex differences in IGT performance, hypothesizing that men and women would obtain significantly different IGT net scores in the classic 100-trial task.
Method
Literature Search and Study Selection
The current meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (see PRISMA checklist included in Online Resource 1), and the selection process for suitable publications was organized according the four steps included in the PRISMA flow diagram.
Firstly, potentially eligible articles were identified via a predefined algorithm in two electronic databases: pubMED (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) and psychINFO (https://www.apa.org/pubs/databases/psychinfo/). The following search algorithm was used: “Iowa gambling task” OR “igt.” The search was conducted on 15 January 2023 and was limited to English-language publications published in the prior 20 years; this was done in order to systematize an ample time frame in which the use of the IGT version of interest in the current meta-analysis has been highly prevalent. The second step involved the exclusion of all duplicates and the screening of titles and abstracts in order to exclude irrelevant studies. Subsequently, the eligibility of the remaining articles was assessed by applying the following inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria were (a) use of the original 100-trial version of the IGT with two advantageous and two disadvantageous decks of cards, (b) the inclusion of both male and female participants, and (c) the inclusion of healthy adult participants (i.e., over 18 years old). Exclusion criteria were (a) use of an alternative version of the IGT (e.g., different number of trials or decks), (b) review articles and/or meta-analyses without any new data, (c) case reports, (d) studies conducted exclusively on clinical samples, and (e) studies conducted exclusively on participants below 18 years of age. All of the aforementioned steps were conducted by two independent reviewers; upon disagreement regarding a study’s eligibility, reviewers discussed their view until a consensus was reached. Eligible articles which provided all of the necessary data were included in the present meta-analysis; if any necessary information was missing, corresponding authors were contacted via e-mail. Furthermore, authors of publications including multiple studies with independent outcomes were also contacted in order to retrieve the data and characteristics pertaining to each independent sample.
Data Extraction
The following data was extracted from every included study or for a subsample of a study (e.g., if only a portion of the participants took part in the IGT or if healthy controls were compared to a clinical population): (a) author and publication year, (b) number of males and females, (c) mean age, (d) task version (computerized/manual), (e) monetary reward (real/not real), (f) study quality (0–7), (g) region in which the study was conducted (North America/South America/Europe/Asia/Africa/Oceania), (g) mean and standard deviation of the IGT total net score for males, and (h) mean and standard deviation of the IGT total net score for females. The IGT total net score is the difference between the number of advantageous and disadvantageous choices made throughout the 100 trials (i.e., \(\left(\left(C+D\right)-\left(A+B\right)\right)\)); a higher net score reflects a higher proportion of advantageous choices made by the participant throughout the task, and therefore a better performance.
The quality of the studies was assessed through an index derived from the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) (Peterson et al., 2011) often used in meta-analyses and systematic reviews (e.g., Cruciani et al., 2021). The quality index ranges from 0 to 7 points; the criteria used to assess the quality of each study are specified in Online Resource 2.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was performed using the software Jasp 0.18.0.0. All of the analyses were performed using random-effect models to account for variance caused by differences among participants within and between studies. Effect sizes were computed for each study in terms of Unstandardized Mean Difference (UMD) in order to facilitate the interpretation of the results. The Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimator was used to estimate between-study variance (Veroniki et al., 2016). The 95% confidence intervals (CI) for between-study variance were created using the Q-profile method, and the Hartung-Knapp adjustment was applied (IntHout et al., 2014). Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using Q and T2 statistics.
Moderator analysis was performed for the following variables: mean age, monetary reward (real/not real), publication year, sample size, study quality, task version (computerized/manual), and region (North America/South America/Europe/Asia/Oceania). All moderators were included within the same model to allow for the interpretation of the effect of each moderator while controlling for the remaining variables. Continuous moderators were evaluated using meta-regressions, whereas categorical moderators were entered as grouping variables in the effect size calculations.
Regarding publication bias, a funnel plot was generated and visually assessed for signs of asymmetry. Begg and Mazumdar’s rank correlations and Egger’s regression intercept were calculated to test for small-study effects (i.e., when smaller studies obtain different effects than larger studies), for which publication bias may be one of the possible causes (Egger et al., 1997). Finally, a step-weight function selection model approach was computed to test and adjust the estimated effect for potential publication bias (Iyengar & Greenhouse, 1988; Vevea & Hedges, 1995).
Results
The various steps of the selection process are summarized in Fig. 1. A total of 6666 articles were initially identified through the database search. After removing duplicates, the titles and abstracts of the remaining 5672 records were screened. A full-text assessment was then performed on 1409 articles by applying the aforementioned inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these, 722 records were deemed eligible for inclusion. However, in order to perform the present meta-analysis, additional data had to be extracted (e.g., mean and standard deviations of the IGT net score for males and females); this information was often not reported within the publications. Thus, the necessary data was requested by contacting the corresponding author of each study. Among the 722 eligible studies that met all inclusion and exclusion criteria, 110 were ultimately included in the present meta-analysis.
Table 1 summarizes the characteristics and the data extracted from the 110 studies. Furthermore, details on the quality assessment indices obtained through the Newcastle Ottawa Scale are reported in Online Resource 3.
As displayed in the forest plot in Fig. 2, the meta-analysis revealed a significant difference between the IGT total net scores of males and females, with males performing better than females (110 studies; UMD = 3.381; t(109) = 4.592; standard error = 0.736; 95% CI [1.922, 4.841]; p < 0.001).
The heterogeneity across studies was also significant, as shown by the Q (Q(109) = 206.001; p < 0.001) and the T2 (T2 = 20.782; 95% CI [11.782, 48.921]) statistics.
Regarding publication bias, the funnel plot in Fig. 3 revealed no evidence of asymmetry; Kendall’s tau (Z = 0.081; p = 0.210) and Egger’s regression test (t = 1.570; p = 0.119) did not reveal any small-study effects, for which publication bias would have been considered one of the possible causes. Using a selection-model approach, assuming heterogeneity (Q(109) = 206.001; p = < 0.001), no evidence of publication bias was observed (X2 = 0.491; p = 0.483). Furthermore, the publication bias-adjusted effect size remained significant (UMD = 2.747; standard error = 1.064; 95% CI [0.662, 4.832]; p = 0.010).
The results regarding the moderation analyses are summarized in Table 2; neither publication year, sample size, mean age, study quality, task version, monetary reward, nor region moderated the obtained results.
Discussion
To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first meta-analysis to compare male and female IGT performance within the healthy population. The pooled analysis revealed a sex-related difference in IGT performance across the 110 included studies, with males obtaining higher total net scores than females (UMD = 3.381; p < 0.001). Furthermore, the data resulted as significantly heterogenous; heterogeneity is a measure of inter-study variability in terms of reported outcomes. The levels of heterogeneity observed suggest that there is significant variability between the results obtained by individual studies that have compared male and female performance on the IGT. Interestingly, the results were not moderated by either mean sample age, publication year, sample size, study quality, type of monetary reward (i.e., real or not real), task version (i.e., computerized or manual), or region in which the study was conducted (in terms of geographical continent).
Individual studies had previously suggested that there may be a sex-related difference in decision-making, as measured by the IGT (for a review, see van den Bos et al., 2013). By pooling all existing literature from the past 20 years, this study was able to systematically assess any potential differences between men and women at a greater scale in order to draw more robust conclusions and quantify the size of this presumed difference. The meta-analysis revealed that males performed significantly better than females in terms of the total net score, choosing advantageous decks more often than women throughout the 100 trials. In practical terms, IGT performance may be considered an indication of the ability to weigh the odds that one is faced with and delay short-term gratification in order to achieve long-term rewards; this ability may have complex ramifications in day-to-day situations where an individual is asked to make a decision to optimize long-term prospects regardless of potential short-term negative consequences, such as in a work setting.
Several mechanisms may underlie a difference in decision-making between men and women. Firstly, the current literature seems to suggest that there may be a neural basis for predicting differences in decision-making between men and women, and that sex-related functional asymmetries in the VMPFC and amygdala may be at the forefront of the observed differences (Weller & Colleagues, 2010). The IGT seems to be a task predominantly associated with the right hemisphere (Christman et al., 2007; Naccache et al., 2005), and interestingly, the right hemisphere seems to be more involved in the decision-making process in men, whereas the opposite seems to be true for women. For example, emotional arousal has been found to enhance memory through the activation of the right amygdala in men, and through the left amygdala in women (Cahill et al., 2004). Additionally, lesion studies have found that men with VMPFC or right amygdala lesions and women with VMPFC or left amygdala lesions manifested social functioning and decision-making deficits; in contrast, the same deficits were not observed when the opposite hemispheres of the same areas were lesioned (i.e., left in men and right in women) (Tranel et al., 2005). Similar results were also observed in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies, in which more lateralized activations in the right hemisphere were observed in men during the IGT compared to women (Bolla et al., 2004). Taken together, these results seem to suggest that this proposed functional asymmetry may be partly responsible for the main finding of the present study.
Another hypothesis concerns a difference in sensitivity to wins and losses. Within the healthy population, the disadvantageous deck B is chosen almost as often as the advantageous deck D, suggesting that frequency of wins/losses may be more important than the actual size of the win/loss when performing the task (Lin et al., 2012). This phenomenon is known as the prominent deck B phenomenon and seems to be more pronounced in women, suggesting that they have a greater sensitivity to frequency of wins/losses than men (van den Bos et al., 2013). Furthermore, Garrido-Chaves and colleagues (2020) observed a greater amplitude of the Feedback-Related Negativity (FRN) component in women participating in the IGT. The FRN is a brain signal that usually peaks 260 ms after receiving unfavorable feedback and is particularly sensitive to losses following the presentation of an economic feedback. The authors therefore suggest that women may show greater sensitivity to perceived financial losses in the IGT (Garrido-Chaves et al., 2020).
Finally, Villanueva-Moya and Expósito (2021) highlight the relevance of sociocultural factors in women’s decision-making process. Their study revealed that when placed in a stereotype-threat condition, women make riskier and more disadvantageous decisions than men under the same conditions or women in non-stereotyped threat conditions; the same result is observed when in fear of a negative evaluation. The authors therefore emphasize the relevance of psychosocial variables that legitimize gender inequality in women’s decision-making process (Villanueva-Moya & Expósito, 2021).
Although all of these aforementioned mechanisms may be partly responsible in determining the observed result of a better male performance in the IGT, it is also important to note that, to the best of our knowledge, measurement invariance across sexes has not yet been assessed. It may be possible that men and women do not interpret the task in the same way, and thus must be considered one of the variables potentially contributing to this result.
The heterogeneity observed in the outcomes of the studies may be due to several variables that have been found to differentially impact the male and female decision-making process, such as stress, testosterone levels, trait anxiety, and the menstrual cycle. Specifically, higher cortisol levels in men are associated with a poorer performance, whereas an inverse relationship is observed in women, suggesting that women may make better long-term decisions than men under stress (Van den Bos et al., 2009). Furthermore, higher testosterone levels have been linked to riskier choices in both men and women; interestingly, this effect seems to be more pronounced in women (Stanton et al., 2011). Regarding trait anxiety, low and high levels of trait anxiety in men have both been associated with an impaired IGT performance; on the contrary, IGT performance in females seems to only be hindered by high levels of trait anxiety (de Visser et al., 2010). Finally, the phase of the menstrual cycle may affect women’s sensitivity to rewards, potentially influencing their performance on this task; for example, in the follicular phase, women seem to be more sensitive to the rewarding aspects of d-amphetamine than in the luteal phase (Justice & de Wit, 1999). All of these factors may have played a role in determining the high variability in terms of the outcomes reported by the individual studies.
Although many factors may play a role in determining sex-related differences in decision-making, moderator analysis showed that the results of the meta-analysis did not differ based on either mean sample age, publication year, sample size, study quality, type of monetary reward, task version, or region in which the study was conducted. A moderator is any variable that conditions the relationship between the two main variables (i.e., IGT performance and sex). In this particular case, none of the aforementioned variables moderated the main finding of a better male IGT performance. Regarding the variable mean age, the current meta-analysis may not be representative of all age ranges due to the exclusion of children and to the possible over-representation of studies conducted on university students. Moreover, although 20 years of data were included, the results did not differ based on the year of publication. The results obtained regarding the moderators “type of monetary reward” (i.e., real or fake money) and “task version” (i.e., computerized or manual) confirm and extend previous findings which suggest that differences in task versions and type of reward received do not significantly impact performance (Bowman & Turnbull, 2003; Bowman et al., 2005; Fernie & Tunney, 2006).
Finally, the analyses conducted to assess and adjust for any potential publication bias found no evidence of small-study effects, for which publication bias would have been considered one of the possible causes; small-study effects occur when the effects observed in smaller studies are different than those obtained in larger studies (Egger et al., 1997). Furthermore, when using a selection model approach to adjust the estimated effect for publication bias, the adjusted effect remained significant, albeit decreasing in size (adjusted UMD = 2.747; p = 0.010).
Limitations
The present study has several limitations. Firstly, the selection process was limited to the past 20 years; thus, any study conducted prior to this time frame was excluded from the database search. Furthermore, despite identifying 11 grey literature studies that complied with the inclusion criteria, the necessary data was not available within the dissertations/articles themselves and the authors failed to respond to the data request made via e-mail; the present study therefore does not include data deriving from grey literature. Secondly, the study did not assess measurement invariance; thus, it may be possible that men and women simply do not interpret the task in the same way. Moreover, the inclusion criteria were restricted to articles that used the classic 100-trial IGT. Past research has also suggested that any sex-related difference in performance may only emerge as a difference in the learning curve, in that women tend to learn which decks to avoid later than men (van den Bos et al., 2007). It would therefore be interesting to explore whether the observed difference between males and females persists in longer versions of the task (e.g., 120-trial task). Furthermore, by only taking the net score into consideration, specific differences in terms of deck preferences, strategies, or phases of the task were not explored. For example, the IGT may be subdivided into an initial learning phase (i.e., the first 40 trials) and a second risk phase (i.e., the final 60 trials) to explore strategy development throughout the progression of the task. Previous studies have suggested that a sex-related difference may only emerge around the 60th trial of the task, implying that although both sexes initially consider all four decks equally, throughout the progression of the task men tend to learn to exclude the disadvantageous choices earlier than women (van den Bos et al., 2007). These results suggest that women tend to persist in the initial erroneous strategy of considering all four decks equally, rather than identifying and excluding the disadvantageous ones.
It is also important to highlight that the meta-analysis revealed significant heterogeneity, suggesting high variability between the results obtained by individual studies that have compared male and female performance on the IGT. In fact, despite of the significant result obtained, articles included in the present study often reported mixed results, suggesting that there are considerable discrepancies across studies’ outcomes. As displayed by the forest plot in Fig. 2, numerous studies failed to observe any sex difference in IGT performance, and, in several cases, even reported higher scores obtained by women.
Conclusions
Limitations notwithstanding, this pooled analysis of the last 20 years of data concerning IGT performance in males and females highlighted a sex-related difference in IGT performance, with males obtaining higher scores than females. However, it also revealed significant variability and inconsistencies in the results of studies that measured IGT performance within the normal population.
These findings may have methodological and clinical implications. From a methodological point of view, a potential sex-related difference must be taken into account during the sampling process of any study which aims to use the IGT within its research, with particular emphasis on the various factors which may bring about individual differences in performance, as emphasized by the significant heterogeneity observed.
From a clinical perspective, it is particularly curious to note that sex differences have not been identified in other decision-making tasks, such as the Game of Dice task and the Balloon Analogue Risk task (van den Bos et al., 2013). It is reasonable to assume that the result that emerged from the present study may be due to the specific characteristics of this particular task, rather than decision-making in general. The IGT has been specifically built to mimic the experience of gambling and to simulate the perceived prospect of a financial gain/loss. Interestingly, males are also typically more likely than females to be either at-risk or problem gamblers (Merkouris et al., 2016). In fact, a recent study by Carneiro and colleagues (2020) found that males were 2.3 times more at risk of gambling exposure and 3.6 times more likely to experience gambling-related problems. Future research may want to explore whether there is a link between men performing better than women on the IGT and their known vulnerability to pathological gambling.
Availability of Data and Materials
The data that supports the findings of this study is available at https://figshare.com/s/9e469dcd851937c51ce1.
References
Alameda-Bailén, J. R., Salguero-Alcañiz, P., Merchán-Clavellino, A., & Paíno-Quesada, S. (2018). Age of onset of cannabis use and decision making under uncertainty. PeerJ, 6e5201. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5201
Aloi, M., Rania, M., de Filippis, R., & Segura-Garcia, C. (2020). Weight and age do not account for a worse executive functioning among BED-obese patients. Eating and Weight Disorders - Studies on Anorexia Bulimia and Obesity, 25(2), 373–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40519-018-0608-9
Bangma, D. F., Koerts, J., Fuermaier, A. B. M., Mette, C., Zimmermann, M., Toussaint, A. K., Tucha, L., & Tucha, O. (2019). Financial decision-making in adults with ADHD. Neuropsychology, 33(8), 1065–1077. https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000571
Barnhart, W. R., Buelow, M. T., & Trost, Z. (2019). Effects of acute pain and pain-related fear on risky decision-making and effort during cognitive tests. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 41(10), 1033–1047.
Bechara, A., Damasio, A. R., Damasio, H., & Anderson, S. W. (1994). Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition, 50(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3
Bechara, A., Tranel, D., & Damasio, H. (2000). Characterization of the decision-making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions. Brain, 123(11), 2189–2202. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/123.11.2189
Birkás, B., Csathó, Á., Gács, B., & Bereczkei, T. (2015). Nothing ventured nothing gained: Strong associations between reward sensitivity and two measures of Machiavellianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 112–115.
Bø, R., Billieux, J., & Landrø, N. I. (2016). Binge drinking is characterized by decisions favoring positive and discounting negative consequences. Addiction Research & Theory, 24(6), 499–506. https://doi.org/10.3109/16066359.2016.1174215
Bolla, K. I., Eldreth, D. A., Matochik, J. A., & Cadet, J. L. (2004). Sex-related differences in a gambling task and its neurological correlates. Cerebral Cortex, 14(11), 1226–1232.
Bonnaire, C., Devos, G., Barrault, S., Grall-Bronnec, M., Luminet, O., & Billieux, J. (2022). An empirical investigation of the Pathways Model of problem gambling through the conjoint use of self-reports and behavioural tasks. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 11(3), 858–873.
Bouchard, S. M., Brown, T. G., & Nadeau, L. (2012). Decision-making capacities and affective reward anticipation in DWI recidivists compared to non-offenders: A preliminary study. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 45, 580–587.
Bowman, C. H., Evans, C. E., & Turnbull, O. H. (2005). Artificial time constraints on the Iowa Gambling Task: The effects on behavioural performance and subjective experience. Brain and Cognition, 57(1), 21–25.
Bowman, C. H., & Turnbull, O. H. (2003). Real versus facsimile reinforcers on the Iowa Gambling Task. Brain and Cognition, 53(2), 207–210.
Brand, M., Kalbe, E., Labudda, K., Fujiwara, E., Kessler, J., & Markowitsch, H. J. (2005). Decision-making impairments in patients with pathological gambling. Psychiatry Research, 133(1), 91–99.
Brand, M., Recknor, E. C., Grabenhorst, F., & Bechara, A. (2007). Decisions under ambiguity and decisions under risk: Correlations with executive functions and comparisons of two different gambling tasks with implicit and explicit rules. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 29(1), 86–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803390500507196
Brunell, A. B., & Buelow, M. T. (2017). Narcissism and performance on behavioral decision-making tasks. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30(1), 3–14.
Buelow, M. T., & Barnhart, W. R. (2017). The influence of math anxiety, math performance, worry, and test anxiety on the Iowa Gambling Task and Balloon Analogue Risk Task. Assessment, 24(1), 127–137.
Buelow, M. T., & Barnhart, W. R. (2018). Test–retest reliability of common behavioral decision making tasks. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 33(1), 125–129.
Buelow, M. T., & Blaine, A. L. (2015). The assessment of risky decision making: A factor analysis of performance on the Iowa Gambling Task, Balloon Analogue Risk Task, and Columbia Card Task. Psychological Assessment, 27(3), 777.
Buelow, M. T., & Brunell, A. B. (2020). Narcissism, the experience of pain, and risky decision making. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1128.
Buelow, M. T., Okdie, B. M., & Blaine, A. L. (2013). Seeing the forest through the trees: Improving decision making on the Iowa gambling task by shifting focus from short-to long-term outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 773.
Buelow, M. T., Okdie, B. M., Brunell, A. B., & Trost, Z. (2015a). Stuck in a moment and you cannot get out of it: The lingering effects of ostracism on cognition and satisfaction of basic needs. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 39–43.
Buelow, M. T., Okdie, B. M., & Cooper, A. B. (2015b). The influence of video games on executive functions in college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 228–234.
Buelow, M. T., & Suhr, J. A. (2009). Construct validity of the Iowa Gambling Task. Neuropsychology Review, 19(1), 102–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-009-9083-4
Buelow, M. T., & Suhr, J. A. (2013). Personality characteristics and state mood influence individual deck selections on the Iowa Gambling Task. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(5), 593–597.
Buelow, M. T., & Suhr, J. A. (2014). Risky decision making in smoking and nonsmoking college students: Examination of Iowa Gambling Task performance by deck type selections. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 3(1), 38–44.
Buelow, M. T., & Wirth, J. H. (2017). Decisions in the face of known risks: Ostracism increases risky decision-making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 69, 210–217.
Burke, S. M., van de Giessen, E., de Win, M., Schilt, T., van Herk, M., van den Brink, W., & Booij, J. (2011). Serotonin and dopamine transporters in relation to neuropsychological functioning, personality traits and mood in young adult healthy subjects. Psychological Medicine, 41(2), 419–429.
Cahill, L., Uncapher, M., Kilpatrick, L., Alkire, M. T., & Turner, J. (2004). Sex-related hemispheric lateralization of amygdala function in emotionally influenced memory: An FMRI investigation. Learning & Memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.), 11(3), 261–266. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.70504
Carneiro, E., Tavares, H., Sanches, M., Pinsky, I., Caetano, R., Zaleski, M., & Laranjeira, R. (2020). Gender differences in gambling exposure and at-risk gambling behavior. Journal of Gambling Studies, 36(2), 445–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-019-09884-7
Casey, J. L., & Cservenka, A. (2020). Effects of frequent marijuana use on risky decision-making in young adult college students. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 11, 100253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2020.100253
Christman, S. D., Jasper, J. D., Sontam, V., & Cooil, B. (2007). Individual differences in risk perception versus risk taking: Handedness and interhemispheric interaction. Brain and Cognition, 63(1), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2006.08.001
Clay, J. M., & Parker, M. O. (2018). The role of stress-reactivity, stress-recovery and risky decision-making in psychosocial stress-induced alcohol consumption in social drinkers. Psychopharmacology (berl), 235(11), 3243–3257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-018-5027-0
Crane, N. A., Schuster, R. M., & Gonzalez, R. (2013). Preliminary evidence for a sex-specific relationship between amount of cannabis use and neurocognitive performance in young adult cannabis users. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 19(9), 1009–1015. https://doi.org/10.1017/S135561771300088X
Cruciani, G., Zanini, L., Russo, V., Boccardi, E., & Spitoni, G. F. (2021). Pleasantness ratings in response to affective touch across hairy and glabrous skin: A meta-analysis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 131, 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.09.026
Darby, R. R., & Dickerson, B. C. (2017). Dementia, decision-making, and capacity. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 25(6), 270.
Daurat, A., Ricarrère, M., & Tiberge, M. (2013). Decision making is affected in obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome. Journal of Neuropsychology, 7(1), 139–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-6653.2012.02039.x
de Visser, L., van der Knaap, L. J., van de Loo, A. J., Van der Weerd, C. M. M., Ohl, F., & van den Bos, R. (2010). Trait anxiety affects decision-making differently in healthy men and women: Towards gender-specific endophenotypes of anxiety. Neuropsychologia, 48(6), 1598–1606.
Delazer, M., Zamarian, L., Frauscher, B., Mitterling, T., Stefani, A., Heidbreder, A., & Högl, B. (2016). Oxygen desaturation during night sleep affects decision-making in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Journal of Sleep Research, 25(4), 395–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsr.12396
Demaree, H. A., Burns, K. J., & DeDonno, M. A. (2010). Intelligence, but not emotional intelligence, predicts Iowa Gambling Task performance. Intelligence, 38(2), 249–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2009.12.004
Dingemans, A. E., Vanhaelen, C. B., Aardoom, J. J., & van Furth, E. F. (2019). The influence of depressive symptoms on executive functioning in binge eating disorder: A comparison of patients and non-obese healthy controls. Psychiatry Research, 274, 138–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2019.02.033
Dreves, P. A., Blackhart, G. C., & McBee, M. T. (2020). Do behavioral measures of self-control assess construct-level variance? Journal of Research in Personality, 88, 104000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2020.104000
Dreyer, A. J., Stephen, D., Human, R., Swanepoel, T. L., Adams, L., O’Neill, A., Jacobs, W. J., & Thomas, K. G. F. (2022). Risky decision making under stressful conditions: Men and women with smaller cortisol elevations make riskier social and economic decisions. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 810031. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.810031
Dunn, B. D., Dalgleish, T., & Lawrence, A. D. (2006). The somatic marker hypothesis: A critical evaluation. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30(2), 239–271.
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315(7109), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., Goldsmith, H. H., & Van Hulle, C. A. (2006). Gender differences in temperament: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 33–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.33
Emery, R. L., Levine, M. D., Creswell, K. G., Wright, A. G. C., Marsland, A. L., Matthews, K. A., Flory, J. D., & Manuck, S. B. (2020). Impulsivity and midlife cardiometabolic risk: The role of maladaptive health behaviors. Health Psychology: Official Journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, 39(8), 642–654. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000884
Farrell, N., & Walker, B. R. (2019). Reinforcement sensitivity theory and problem gambling in a general population sample. Journal of Gambling Studies, 35(4), 1163–1175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-019-09850-3
Favieri, F., Forte, G., Pazzaglia, M., Chen, E. Y., & Casagrande, M. (2022). High-level executive functions: A possible role of sex and weight condition in planning and decision-making performances. Brain Sciences, 12(2), 149. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12020149
Fernández, R. S., Crivelli, L., Pedreira, M. E., Allegri, R. F., & Correale, J. (2022). Computational basis of decision-making impairment in multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 28(8), 1267–1276. https://doi.org/10.1177/13524585211059308
Fernie, G., & Tunney, R. J. (2006). Some decks are better than others: The effect of reinforcer type and task instructions on learning in the Iowa Gambling Task. Brain and Cognition, 60(1), 94–102.
Gansler, D. A., Jerram, M. W., Vannorsdall, T. D., & Schretlen, D. J. (2011). Does the Iowa Gambling task measure executive function? Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 26(8), 706–717. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acr082
Garrido-Chaves, R., Perez-Alarcón, M., Perez, V., Hidalgo, V., Pulopulos, M. M., & Salvador, A. (2020). FRN and P3 during the Iowa Gambling Task: The importance of gender. Psychophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13734
Gescheidt, T., Mareček, R., Mikl, M., Czekóová, K., Urbánek, T., Vaníček, J., Shaw, D. J., & Bareš, M. (2013). Functional anatomy of outcome evaluation during Iowa Gambling Task performance in patients with Parkinson’s disease: An fMRI study. Neurological Sciences, 34(12), 2159–2166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-013-1439-0
Ghosh, D., Mukhopadhyay, P., Chatterjee, I., & Roy, P. K. (2021). Arousability, personality, and decision-making ability in dissociative disorder. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 43(6), 485–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0253717620981555
Giustiniani, J., Joucla, C., Bennabi, D., Nicolier, M., Chabin, T., Masse, C., Trojak, B., Vandel, P., Haffen, E., & Gabriel, D. (2019). Behavioral and electrophysiological arguments in favor of a relationship between impulsivity, risk-taking, and success on the Iowa Gambling Task. Brain Sciences, 9(10), 248. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci9100248
Gkintoni, E., Pallis, E. G., Bitsios, P., & Giakoumaki, S. G. (2017). Neurocognitive performance, psychopathology and social functioning in individuals at high risk for schizophrenia or psychotic bipolar disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders, 208, 512–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.10.032
Grijalva, E., Newman, D. A., Tay, L., Donnellan, M. B., Harms, P. D., Robins, R. W., & Yan, T. (2015). Gender differences in narcissism: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 141(2), 261.
Gullo, M. J., & Stieger, A. A. (2011). Anticipatory stress restores decision-making deficits in heavy drinkers by increasing sensitivity to losses. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 117(2–3), 204–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.02.002
Halpern, D. F. (2013). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (4th ed.). Psychology Press.
Hart, J., Schwabach, J. A., & Solomon, S. (2010). Going for broke: Mortality salience increases risky decision making on the Iowa Gambling Task. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(Pt 2), 425–432. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610X485465
Hayes, W. M., & Wedell, D. H. (2020a). Modeling the role of feelings in the Iowa Gambling Task. Decision, 7(1), 67–89. https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000116
Hayes, W. M., & Wedell, D. H. (2020b). Autonomic responses to choice outcomes: Links to task performance and reinforcement-learning parameters. Biological Psychology, 156, 107968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2020.107968
Heilman, R., & Miclea, M. (2015). The contributions of declarative knowledge and emotion regulation in the Iowa Gambling Task. Cognition, Brain, Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, XIX, 35–53.
Hulka, L. M., Eisenegger, C., Preller, K. H., Vonmoos, M., Jenni, D., Bendrick, K., Baumgartner, M. R., Seifritz, E., & Quednow, B. B. (2014). Altered social and non-social decision-making in recreational and dependent cocaine users. Psychological Medicine, 44(5), 1015–1028. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291713001839
Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 104(1), 53.
Icellioglu, S. (2015). Iowa Kumar Testi: Normatif veriler ve yürütücü işlevlerle ilişkisi. Dusunen Adam: The Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences, 222–230. https://doi.org/10.5350/DAJPN2015280305
IntHout, J., Ioannidis, J. P., & Borm, G. F. (2014). The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-25
Iyengar, S., & Greenhouse, J. B. (1988). Selection models and the file drawer problem. Statistical Science, 3(1), 109–117. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2245925
Justice, A. J., & de Wit, H. (1999). Acute effects of d-amphetamine during the follicular and luteal phases of the menstrual cycle in women. Psychopharmacology (Berl), 145(1), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002130051033
Kashyap, H., Kumar, J. K., Kandavel, T., & Reddy, Y. C. J. (2013). Neuropsychological functioning in obsessive-compulsive disorder: Are executive functions the key deficit? Comprehensive Psychiatry, 54(5), 533–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2012.12.003
Kim, Y. T., Lee, K.-U., & Lee, S. J. (2009). Deficit in decision-making in chronic, stable schizophrenia: From a reward and punishment perspective. Psychiatry Investigation, 6(1), 26–33. https://doi.org/10.4306/pi.2009.6.1.26
Kling, K. C., Hyde, J. S., Showers, C. J., & Buswell, B. N. (1999). Gender differences in self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(4), 470.
Kobayakawa, M., Koyama, S., Mimura, M., & Kawamura, M. (2008). Decision making in Parkinson’s disease: Analysis of behavioral and physiological patterns in the Iowa Gambling Task. Movement Disorders: Official Journal of the Movement Disorder Society, 23(4), 547–552. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.21865
Kräplin, A., Bühringer, G., Oosterlaan, J., van den Brink, W., Goschke, T., & Goudriaan, A. E. (2014). Dimensions and disorder specificity of impulsivity in pathological gambling. Addictive Behaviors, 39(11), 1646–1651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.05.021
Lage, G. M., Albuquerque, M. R., Fuentes, D., Corrêa, H., & Malloy-Diniz, L. F. (2013). Sex differences in dimensions of impulsivity in a non-clinical sample. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 117(2), 601–607. https://doi.org/10.2466/15.19.PMS.117x18z2
Lai, R.-Y., Desai, N. A., Amlang, C. J., Lin, C.-Y.R., Chen, T. X., Minyetty, M. J., Amokrane, N., & Kuo, S.-H. (2023). Gambling associated risk-taking decision in cerebellar ataxia. Parkinsonism & Related Disorders, 107, 105252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2022.105252
Lake, M. T., Shoptaw, S., Ipser, J. C., Takada, S., van Nunen, L. J., Lipinska, G., Stein, D. J., & London, E. D. (2020). Decision-making by patients with methamphetamine use disorder receiving contingency management treatment: Magnitude and frequency effects. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 22. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00022
Lee, S. J., Lee, H.-K., Kweon, Y.-S., Lee, C. T., & Lee, K.-U. (2009). The impact of executive function on emotion recognition and emotion experience in patients with schizophrenia. Psychiatry Investigation, 6(3), 156–162. https://doi.org/10.4306/pi.2009.6.3.156
León, J. J., Sánchez-Kuhn, A., Fernández-Martín, P., Páez-Pérez, M. A., Thomas, C., Datta, A., Sánchez-Santed, F., & Flores, P. (2020). Transcranial direct current stimulation improves risky decision making in women but not in men: A sham-controlled study. Behavioural Brain Research, 382, 112485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2020.112485
Leonello, A., & Jones, M. K. (2016). Pick a card, any card: The relationship between anxiety, obsessive-compulsive symptoms and decision-making. Behaviour Change, 33(1), 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1017/bec.2016.1
Lin, C.-H., Song, T.-J., Lin, Y.-K., & Chiu, Y.-C. (2012). Mirrored prominent deck B phenomenon: Frequent small losses override infrequent large gains in the inverted Iowa Gambling Task. PLoS ONE, 7(10), e47202. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0047202
Linhartová, P., Látalová, A., Barteček, R., Širůček, J., Theiner, P., Ejova, A., Hlavatá, P., Kóša, B., Jeřábková, B., Bareš, M., & Kašpárek, T. (2020). Impulsivity in patients with borderline personality disorder: A comprehensive profile compared with healthy people and patients with ADHD. Psychological Medicine, 50(11), 1829–1838. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291719001892
Lovallo, W. R., Enoch, M.-A., Yechiam, E., Glahn, D. C., Acheson, A., Sorocco, K. H., Hodgkinson, C. A., Kim, B., Cohoon, A. J., Vincent, A. S., & Goldman, D. (2014). Differential impact of serotonin transporter activity on temperament and behavior in persons with a family history of alcoholism in the Oklahoma Family Health Patterns Project. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 38(6), 1575–1581. https://doi.org/10.1111/acer.12412
Lucas, I., Miranda-Olivos, R., Testa, G., Granero, R., Sánchez, I., Sánchez-González, J., Jiménez-Murcia, S., & Fernández-Aranda, F. (2021). Neuropsychological learning deficits as predictors of treatment outcome in patients with eating disorders. Nutrients, 13(7), 2145. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13072145
MacLaren, V., McDonald, V., Hollett, K. B., & Harris, N. (2022). Gambling associated risk-taking behaviors correlate with emotional regulation and the Iowa Gambling Task but not Wisconsin Card Sorting. Journal of Gambling Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-022-10157-z
Maddaluno, O., Aiello, E. N., Roncoroni, C., Prunas, A., & Bolognini, N. (2022). The Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test, Iowa Gambling Task and Interpersonal Reactivity Index: Normative data in an Italian population sample. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology: THe Official Journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists, 37(5), 929–938. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acab100
Martín-Ríos, R., López-Torrecillas, F., Martín-Tamayo, I., & Lozano-Fernández, L. M. (2022). Development of a neuropsychological assessment in smoking. Revista De Neurologia, 74(5), 149–155. https://doi.org/10.33588/rn.7405.2021306
Massar, S. A. A., Kenemans, J. L., & Schutter, D. J. L. G. (2014). Resting-state EEG theta activity and risk learning: Sensitivity to reward or punishment? International Journal of Psychophysiology: Official Journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology, 91(3), 172–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2013.10.013
Maurage, P., Lannoy, S., Dormal, V., Blanco, M., & Trabut, J.-B. (2018). Clinical usefulness of the Iowa Gambling Task in severe alcohol use disorders: Link with relapse and cognitive-physiological deficits. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 42(11), 2266–2273. https://doi.org/10.1111/acer.13873
Mehta, P. H., & Beer, J. (2010). Neural mechanisms of the testosterone–aggression relation: The role of orbitofrontal cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(10), 2357–2368.
Merchán-Clavellino, A., Salguero-Alcañiz, M. P., Barbosa, F., & Alameda-Bailén, J. R. (2019). Decision making profile of positive and negative anticipatory skin conductance responders in an unlimited-time version of the IGT. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2237. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02237
Merkouris, S. S., Thomas, A. C., Shandley, K. A., Rodda, S. N., Oldenhof, E., & Dowling, N. A. (2016). An update on gender differences in the characteristics associated with problem gambling: A systematic review. Current Addiction Reports, 3(3), 254–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-016-0106-y
Meshi, D., Elizarova, A., Bender, A., & Verdejo-Garcia, A. (2019). Excessive social media users demonstrate impaired decision making in the Iowa Gambling Task. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 8(1), 169–173. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.138
Miu, A. C., Crişan, L. G., Chiş, A., Ungureanu, L., Drugă, B., & Vulturar, R. (2012). Somatic markers mediate the effect of serotonin transporter gene polymorphisms on Iowa Gambling Task. Genes, Brain, and Behavior, 11(4), 398–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-183X.2012.00774.x
Molins, F., Serrano, M. Á., & Alacreu-Crespo, A. (2021). Early stages of the acute physical stress response increase loss aversion and learning on decision making: A Bayesian approach. Physiology & Behavior, 237, 113459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2021.113459
Moniz, M., Neves de Jesus, S., Gonçalves, E., Pacheco, A., & Viseu, J. (2016). Decision-making in adult unipolar depressed patients and healthy subjects: Significant differences in Net Score and in non-traditional alternative measures. Neuropsychological Trends, 19, 7–15. https://doi.org/10.7358/neur-2016-019-moni
Müller, S. M., Schiebener, J., Brand, M., & Liebherr, M. (2021). Decision-making, cognitive functions, impulsivity, and media multitasking expectancies in high versus low media multitaskers. Cognitive Processing, 22(4), 593–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-021-01029-2
Naccache, L., Dehaene, S., Cohen, L., Habert, M.-O., Guichart-Gomez, E., Galanaud, D., & Willer, J.-C. (2005). Effortless control: Executive attention and conscious feeling of mental effort are dissociable. Neuropsychologia, 43(9), 1318–1328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.11.024
Namba, S. (2021). Feedback from facial expressions contribute to slow learning rate in an Iowa Gambling Task. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 684249. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.684249
Nicholson, R. A., Birk, J. L., & Bonanno, G. A. (2021). Learning to make smart choices in the context of risk: The roles of internal affective feedback and life events. International Journal of Psychophysiology: Official Journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology, 160, 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2020.12.004
Obeso, I., Herrero, M.-T., Ligneul, R., Rothwell, J. C., & Jahanshahi, M. (2021). A causal role for the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in avoidance of risky choices and making advantageous selections. Neuroscience, 458, 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2020.12.035
Olkoniemi, H., Ranta, H., & Kaakinen, J. K. (2016). Individual differences in the processing of written sarcasm and metaphor: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(3), 433–450. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000176
Olson, E. A., Weber, M., Rauch, S. L., & Killgore, W. D. S. (2016). Daytime sleepiness is associated with reduced integration of temporally distant outcomes on the Iowa Gambling Task. Behavioral Sleep Medicine, 14(2), 200–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/15402002.2014.974182
Oswald, L. M., Wand, G. S., Wong, D. F., Brown, C. H., Kuwabara, H., & Brašić, J. R. (2015). Risky decision-making and ventral striatal dopamine responses to amphetamine: A positron emission tomography [11C]raclopride study in healthy adults. NeuroImage, 113, 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.03.022
Ouerchefani, R., Ouerchefani, N., Allain, P., Ben Rejeb, M. R., & Le Gall, D. (2017). Contribution of different regions of the prefrontal cortex and lesion laterality to deficit of decision-making on the Iowa Gambling Task. Brain and Cognition, 111, 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2016.06.010
Ozga, J. E., Povroznik, J. M., Engler-Chiurazzi, E. B., & Haar, C. V. (2018). Executive (dys) function after traumatic brain injury: Special considerations for behavioral pharmacology. Behavioural Pharmacology, 29(7), 617–637. https://doi.org/10.1097/FBP.0000000000000430
Pacheco-Colón, I., Hawes, S. W., Duperrouzel, J. C., Lopez-Quintero, C., & Gonzalez, R. (2019). Decision-making as a latent construct and its measurement invariance in a large sample of adolescent cannabis users. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 25(7), 661–667. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617719000341
Paz-Alonso, P. M., Navalpotro-Gomez, I., Boddy, P., Dacosta-Aguayo, R., Delgado-Alvarado, M., Quiroga-Varela, A., Jimenez-Urbieta, H., Carreiras, M., & Rodriguez-Oroz, M. C. (2020). Functional inhibitory control dynamics in impulse control disorders in Parkinson’s disease. Movement Disorders: Official Journal of the Movement Disorder Society, 35(2), 316–325. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.27885
Penolazzi, B., Leone, L., & Russo, P. M. (2013). Individual differences and decision making: When the lure effect of gain is a matter of size. PLoS ONE, 8(3), e58946. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058946
Peterson, J., Welch, V., Losos, M., & Tugwell, P. (2011). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 2(1), 1–12.
Premkumar, P., Parbhakar, V. A., Fannon, D., Lythgoe, D., Williams, S. C., Kuipers, E., & Kumari, V. (2010). N-acetyl aspartate concentration in the anterior cingulate cortex in patients with schizophrenia: A study of clinical and neuropsychological correlates and preliminary exploration of cognitive behaviour therapy effects. Psychiatry Research, 182(3), 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2010.02.008
Psederska, E., Thomson, N. D., Bozgunov, K., Nedelchev, D., Vasilev, G., & Vassileva, J. (2021). Effects of psychopathy on neurocognitive domains of impulsivity in abstinent opiate and stimulant users. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, 660810. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.660810
Runyon, M., & Buelow, M. T. (2019). Risky decision-making and delusion proneness: An initial examination. Heliyon, 5(11), e02767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02767
Salehinejad, M. A., Ghanavati, E., Rashid, M. H. A., & Nitsche, M. A. (2021). Hot and cold executive functions in the brain: A prefrontal-cingular network. Brain and Neuroscience Advances, 5, 23982128211007770.
Sánchez-Torres, A. M., Basterra, V., Rosa, A., Fañanás, L., Zarzuela, A., Ibáñez, B., Peralta, V., & Cuesta, M. J. (2013). Lifetime cannabis use and cognition in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders and their unaffected siblings. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 263(8), 643–653. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-013-0404-5
Sebri, V., Triberti, S., & Pravettoni, G. (2021). The self’s choice: Priming attentional focus on bodily self promotes loss frequency bias. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01400-8
Seubert-Ravelo, A. N., Yáñez-Téllez, M. G., Lazo-Barriga, M. L., Calderón Vallejo, A., Martínez-Cortés, C. E., & Hernández-Galván, A. (2021). Social cognition in patients with early-onset Parkinson’s disease. Parkinson’s Disease, 2021, 8852087. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8852087
Shukla, M., Rasmussen, E. C., & Nestor, P. G. (2019). Emotion and decision-making: Induced mood influences IGT scores and deck selection strategies. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 41(4), 341–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2018.1562049
Simonovic, B., Stupple, E. J. N., Gale, M., & Sheffield, D. (2017). Stress and risky decision making: Cognitive reflection, emotional learning or both. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30(2), 658–665. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1980
Singh, V. (2016). Sex-differences, handedness, and lateralization in the Iowa Gambling Task. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 708. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00708
Siqueira, A. S. S., Biella, M. M., Borges, M. K., Mauer, S., Apolinario, D., de Alves, T. C., & T. F., Jacob-Filho, W., Oude Voshaar, R. C., & Aprahamian, I. (2022). Decision-making executive function profile and performance in older adults with major depression: A case-control study. Aging & Mental Health, 26(8), 1551–1557. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2021.1950617
Stanton, S. J., Liening, S. H., & Schultheiss, O. C. (2011). Testosterone is positively associated with risk taking in the Iowa Gambling Task. Hormones and Behavior, 59(2), 252–256.
Stinson, E. J., Krakoff, J., & Gluck, M. E. (2018). Depressive symptoms and poorer performance on the Stroop Task are associated with weight gain. Physiology & Behavior, 186, 25–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2018.01.005
Stoltenberg, S. F., & Vandever, J. M. (2010). Gender moderates the association between 5-HTTLPR and decision-making under ambiguity but not under risk. Neuropharmacology, 58(2), 423–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2009.09.010
Stroud, L. R., Salovey, P., & Epel, E. S. (2002). Sex differences in stress responses: Social rejection versus achievement stress. Biological Psychiatry, 52(4), 318–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(02)01333-1
Takano, Y., Takahashi, N., Tanaka, D., & Hironaka, N. (2010). Big losses lead to irrational decision-making in gambling situations: Relationship between deliberation and impulsivity. PLoS ONE, 5(2), e9368.
Tarantino, V., Tasca, I., Giannetto, N., Mangano, G. R., Turriziani, P., & Oliveri, M. (2021). Impact of perceived stress and immune status on decision-making abilities during COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. Behavioral Sciences (basel, Switzerland), 11(12), 167. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs11120167
Tchanturia, K., Liao, P.-C., Forcano, L., Fernández-Aranda, F., Uher, R., Treasure, J., Schmidt, U., Penelo, E., Granero, R., Jiménez-Murcia, S., Sánchez, I., & Campbell, I. C. (2012). Poor decision making in male patients with anorexia nervosa. European Eating Disorders Review: THe Journal of the Eating Disorders Association, 20(2), 169–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.1154
Tranel, D., Damasio, H., Denburg, N. L., & Bechara, A. (2005). Does gender play a role in functional asymmetry of ventromedial prefrontal cortex? Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 128(Pt 12), 2872–2881. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awh643
Valentini, E., Nicolardi, V., & Aglioti, S. M. (2017). Painful engrams: Oscillatory correlates of working memory for phasic nociceptive laser stimuli. Brain and Cognition, 115, 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2017.03.009
van den Bos, R., den Heijer, E., Vlaar, S., & Houx, B. (2007). Exploring gender differences in decision-making using the Iowa Gambling Task (p. 1115). Nova Science Publishers.
Van den Bos, R., Harteveld, M., & Stoop, H. (2009). Stress and decision-making in humans: Performance is related to cortisol reactivity, albeit differently in men and women. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34(10), 1449–1458.
van den Bos, R., Homberg, J., & de Visser, L. (2013). A critical review of sex differences in decision-making tasks: Focus on the Iowa Gambling Task. Behavioural Brain Research, 238, 95–108.
Veroniki, A. A., Jackson, D., Viechtbauer, W., Bender, R., Bowden, J., Knapp, G., Kuss, O., Higgins, J. P., Langan, D., & Salanti, G. (2016). Methods to estimate the between-study variance and its uncertainty in meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 7(1), 55–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1164
Vevea, J. L., & Hedges, L. V. (1995). A general linear model for estimating effect size in the presence of publication bias. Psychometrika, 60, 419–435.
Vila-Rodriguez, F., Panenka, W. J., Lang, D. J., Thornton, A. E., Vertinsky, T., Wong, H., Barr, A. M., Procyshyn, R. M., Sidhu, J. J., Smith, G. N., Buchanan, T., Krajden, M., Krausz, M., Montaner, J. S., MacEwan, G. W., & Honer, W. G. (2013). The hotel study: Multimorbidity in a community sample living in marginal housing. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 170(12), 1413–1422. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.12111439
Villanueva-Moya, L., & Expósito, F. (2021). Gender differences in decision-making: The effects of gender stereotype threat moderated by sensitivity to punishment and fear of negative evaluation. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 34(5), 706–717. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2239
Voyer, D., Saint Aubin, J., Altman, K., & Gallant, G. (2021). Sex differences in verbal working memory: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 147(4), 352.
Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 250–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.250
Voyer, D., Voyer, S. D., & Saint-Aubin, J. (2017). Sex differences in visual-spatial working memory: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 307–334.
Vrshek-Schallhorn, S., Wahlstrom, D., White, T., & Luciana, M. (2013). The effect of acute tyrosine phenylalanine depletion on emotion-based decision-making in healthy adults. Pharmacology, Biochemistry, and Behavior, 105, 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbb.2013.01.013
Webb, C. A., DelDonno, S., & Killgore, W. D. S. (2014). The role of cognitive versus emotional intelligence in Iowa Gambling Task performance: What’s emotion got to do with it? Intelligence, 44, 112–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.03.008
Weller, J. A., Levin, I. P., & Bechara, A. (2010). Do individual differences in Iowa Gambling Task performance predict adaptive decision making for risky gains and losses? Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 32(2), 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803390902881926
Werner, N. S., Schweitzer, N., Meindl, T., Duschek, S., Kambeitz, J., & Schandry, R. (2013). Interoceptive awareness moderates neural activity during decision-making. Biological Psychology, 94(3), 498–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.09.002
Yechiam, E., Hayden, E. P., Bodkins, M., O’Donnell, B. F., & Hetrick, W. P. (2008). Decision making in bipolar disorder: A cognitive modeling approach. Psychiatry Research, 161(2), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2007.07.001
Yechiam, E., & Telpaz, A. (2013). Losses induce consistency in risk taking even without loss aversion. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.758
Yechiam, E., Telpaz, A., Krupenia, S., & Rafaeli, A. (2016). unhappiness intensifies the avoidance of frequent losses while happiness overcomes it. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1703. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01703
Zhang, F., Xiao, L., & Gu, R. (2017). Does gender matter in the relationship between anxiety and decision-making? Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2231. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02231
Zhang, L., Vashisht, H., Nethra, A., Slattery, B., & Ward, T. (2022). Differences in learning and persistency characterizing behavior in chronic pain for the Iowa Gambling Task: Web-based laboratory-in-the-field study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 24(4), e26307. https://doi.org/10.2196/26307
Zourakaki, C., Karamaouna, P., Karagiannopoulou, L., & Giakoumaki, S. (2020). Associations of multidimensional temperament and character profiles with cognition and sensorimotor gating in individuals at risk for schizophrenia-spectrum disorders: Preliminary findings. Psychology: The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society, 25(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.12681/psy_hps.25581
Zouraraki, C., Karagiannopoulou, L., Karamaouna, P., Pallis, E. G., & Giakoumaki, S. G. (2019). Schizotypal traits, neurocognition, and paternal age in unaffected first degree relatives of patients with familial or sporadic schizophrenia. Psychiatry Research, 273, 422–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.12.142
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception. Chiara Picano and Ludovica Zanini performed the literature search and data analysis. All authors drafted the work and Grazia Fernanda Spitoni critically revised the work.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval
Not applicable; the current study is a meta-analysis that retrospectively retrieved and synthesized previously published data.
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Zanini, L., Picano, C. & Spitoni, G.F. The Iowa Gambling Task: Men and Women Perform Differently. A Meta-analysis. Neuropsychol Rev (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-024-09637-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-024-09637-3