Deciding with (or without) the Future in Mind: Individual Differences in Decision-Making

  • Marina Cosenza
  • Olimpia Matarazzo
  • Ivana Baldassarre
  • Giovanna Nigro
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 26)


The aim of this study was to examine the influence of propensity to risk taking, impulsivity, and present versus future orientation in decision-making under ambiguity. One hundred and four healthy adults were administered the computer versions of the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) and the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). They then completed the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11) and the Consideration of Future Consequences Scale (CFC-14). Results indicated that high scores on the BIS-11 Non-Planning impulsivity scale, the CFC-14 Immediate scale, and the BART result in poorer performance on the IGT. In addition, the results of regression analysis showed also that the BART total score was the most powerful predictor of performance on the IGT. The study revealed that individuals who are more prone to risk, less likely to plan ahead carefully, and more oriented to the present, rather than to the future, performed worse on the IGT.


Decision-making impulsivity risk taking future orientation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Babor, T.F., Higgins-Biddle, J.C., Saunders, J.B., Montiero, M.G.: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: Guidelines of Use in Primary Care, 2nd edn. World Health Organization, Geneva (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barry, D., Petry, N.M.: Predictors of Decision-Making on the Iowa Gambling Task: Independent Effects of Lifetime History of Substance Use Disorders and Performance on the Trail Making Test. Brain & Cognition 66, 243–252 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bechara, A.: Risky Business: Emotion, Decision-Making, and Addiction. Journal of Gambling Studies 19, 23–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bechara, A.: Decision Making, Impulse Control and Loss of Willpower to Resist Drugs: A Neurocognitive Perspective. Nature Neuroscience 8, 1458–1463 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bechara, A.: Iowa Gambling Task Professional Manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Lutz (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bechara, A., Damasio, H.: Decision-Making and Addiction (Part I): Impaired Activation of Somatic States in Substance Dependent Individuals When Pondering Decisions with Negative Future Consequences. Neuropsychologia 40, 1675–1689 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bechara, A., Damasio, A.R., Damasio, H., Anderson, S.W.: Insensitivity to Future Consequences Following Damage to Human Prefrontal Cortex. Cognition 50, 7–15 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bechara, S., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., Anderson, S.W.: Dissociation of Working Memory from Decision Making within the Human Prefrontal Cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience 18, 428–437 (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., Damasio, A.R.: The Iowa Gambling Task and the Somatic Marker Hypothesis: Some Questions and Answers. Trends in Cognitive Science 9, 159–162 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bechara, A., Martin, E.M.: Impaired Decision Making Related to Working Memory Deficits in Individuals with Substance Addictions. Neuropsychology 18, 152–162 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bechara, A., Tranel, D., Damasio, H.: Characterization of the Decision-Making Deficit of Patients with Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex Lesions. Brain 123, 2189–2202 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Buelow, M.T., Suhr, J.A.: Construct Validity of the Iowa Gambling Task. Neuropsychology Review 19, 102–114 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Caroselli, J.S., Hiscock, M., Scheibel, R.S., Ingram, F.: The Simulated Gambling Paradigm Applied to Young Adults: An Examination of University Students’ Performance. Applied Neuropsychology 13, 203–212 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Damasio, A.R.: Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. Grosset/Putnam, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Damasio, H., Grabowski, T., Frank, R., Galburda, A.M., Damasio, A.R.: The Return of Phineas Gage: Clues Aboutthe Brain from the Skull of a Famous Patient. Science 264, 1102–1104 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Damasio, A.R., Tranel, D., Damasio, H.: Somatic Markers and the Guidance of Behavior: Theory and Preliminary Testing. In: Levin, H.S., Eisenberg, H.M., Benton, A.L. (eds.) Frontal Lobe Function and Dysfunction, pp. 217–229. Oxford University Press, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Davis, C., Patte, K., Tweed, S., Curtis, C.: Personality Traits Associated with Decision-Making Deficits. Personality and Individual Differences 42, 279–290 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dunn, B.D., Dalgleish, T., Lawrence, A.D.: The Somatic Marker Hypothesis: A Critical Evaluation. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 30, 239–271 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eslinger, P.J., Damasio, A.R.: Severe Disturbance of Higher Cognition after Bilateral Frontal Lobe Ablation: Patient EVR. Neurology 35, 1731–1741 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fossati, A., Ceglie, A.D., Acqarini, E., Barratt, E.S.: Psychometric Properties of an Italian Version of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 (BIS-11) in Nonclinical Subjects. Journal of Clinical Psychology 57, 815–828 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Franken, I.H.A., Muris, P.: Individual Differences in Decision-Making. Personality and Individual Differences 39, 991–998 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Franken, I.H.A., van Strien, J.W., Nijs, I., Muris, P.: Impulsivity is Associated with Behavioral Decision-Making Deficits. Psychiatry Research 158, 155–163 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Glicksohn, J., Naor-Ziv, R., Leshem, R.: Impulsive Decision Making: Learning to Gamble Wisely? Cognition 105, 195–205 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Glicksohn, J., Zilberman, N.: Gambling on Individual Differences in Decision Making. Personality and Individual Differences 48, 557–562 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Harlow, J.M.: Passage of an Iron Rod through the Head. Boston Medical and Surgical Journal 39, 389–393 (1848)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Harlow, J.M.: Recovery from the Passage of an Iron Bar through the Head. Publications of the Massachusetts Medical Society 2, 327–347 (1868)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Joireman, J., Balliet, D., Sprott, D., Spangenberg, E., Schultz, J.: Consideration of Future Consequences, Ego-Depletion, and Self-Control: Support for Distinguishing between CFC-Immediate and CFC-Future Sub-scales. Personality and Individual Differences 45, 15–21 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Joireman, J., Shaffer, M.J., Balliet, D., Strathman, A.: Promotion Orientation Explains Why Future-Oriented People Exercise and Eat Healthy: Evidence from the Two-Factor Consideration of Future Consequences-14 Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38(10), 1272–1287 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kloeters, S., Bertoux, M., O’Callaghan, C., Hodges, J.R., Hornberger, M.: Money for nothing – Atrophy Correlates of Gambling Decision Making in Behavioural Variant Frontotemporal Dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease. NeuroImage: Clinical 2, 263–272 (2013)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lejuez, C.W., Read, J.P., Kahler, C.W., Richards, J.B., Ramsey, S.E., Stuart, G.L., Strong, D.R., Brown, R.A.: Evaluation of a Behavioral Measure of Risk Taking: the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 8, 75–84 (2002)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lesieur, H.R., Blume, S.B.: The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A New Instrument for the Identification of Pathological Gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry 144(9), 1184–1188 (1987)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lin, C.-H., Chiu, Y.-C., Lee, P.-L., Hsieh, J.-C.: Is Deck B a Disadvantageous Deck in the Iowa Gambling Task? Behavioral and Brain Functions 3, 1–10 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mardaga, S., Hansenne, M.: Personality and Skin Conductance Responses to Reward and Punishment. Influence on the Iowa Gambling Task Performance. Journal of Individual Differences 33, 17–23 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Patton, J.H., Stanford, M.S., Barratt, E.S.: Factor Structure of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology 51, 768–774 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Skinner, H.A.: The drug abuse screening test. Addictive Behaviors 7, 363–371 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Steingroever, H., Wetzels, R., Horstmann, A., Neumann, J., Wagenmakers, E.: Performance of Healthy Participants on the Iowa Gambling Task. Psychological Assessment 25, 180–193 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Upton, D.J., Bishara, A.J., Ahn, W.-Y., Stout, J.C.: Propensity for Risk Taking and Trait Impulsivity in the Iowa Gambling Task. Personality and Individual Differences 50, 492–495 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Van Horn, J.D., Irimia, A., Torgerson, C.M., Chambers, M.C., Kikinis, R., Toga, A.W.: Mapping Connectivity Damage in the Case of Phineas Gage. PLoS One 7(5), e37454, 1–24 (2012)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wilder, K.E., Weinberger, D.R., Goldberg, T.E.: Operant Conditioning and the Orbitofrontal Cortex in Schizophrenic Patients: Unexpected Evidence for Intact Functioning. Schizophrenia Research 30, 169–174 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zermatten, A., Van der Linden, M., d’Acremont, M., Jermann, F., Bechara, A.: Impulsivity and Decision Making. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 193, 647–650 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marina Cosenza
    • 1
  • Olimpia Matarazzo
    • 1
  • Ivana Baldassarre
    • 1
  • Giovanna Nigro
    • 1
  1. 1.Second University of NaplesCasertaItaly

Personalised recommendations