↓ Skip to main content

Decision Making in the Reward and Punishment Variants of the Iowa Gambling Task: Evidence of “Foresight” or “Framing”?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Decision Making in the Reward and Punishment Variants of the Iowa Gambling Task: Evidence of “Foresight” or “Framing”?
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2012.00107
Pubmed ID
Authors

Varsha Singh, Azizuddin Khan

Abstract

Surface-level differences in the reward and punishment variants, specifically greater long-term decision making in the punishment variant of the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) observed in previous studies led to the present comparison of long-term decision making in the two IGT variants (n = 320, male = 160). It was contended that risk aversion triggered by a positive frame of the reward variant and risk seeking triggered by a negative frame of the punishment variant appears as long-term decision making in the two IGT variants. Apart from the frame of the variant as a within-subjects factor (variant type: reward and punishment), the order in which the frame was triggered (order type: reward-punishment or punishment-reward), and the four types of instructions that delineated motivation toward reward from that of punishment (reward, punishment, reward and punishment, and no-hint) were hypothesized to have an effect on foresighted decision making in the IGT. As expected, long-term decision making differed across the two IGT variants suggesting that the frame of the variant has an effect on long-term decision making in the IGT (p < 0.001). The order in which a variant was presented, and the type of the instructions that were used both had an effect on long-term decision making in the two IGT variants (p < 0.05). A post hoc test suggested that the instructions that differentiated between reward and punishment resulted in greater foresight than the commonly used IGT instructions that fail to distinguish between reward and punishment. As observed in previous studies, there were more number of participants (60%) who showed greater foresight in the punishment variant than in the reward variant (p < 0.001). The results suggest that foresight in IGT decision making is sensitive to reward and punishment frame in an asymmetric manner, an observation that is aligned with the behavioral decision making framework. Benefits of integrating findings from behavioral studies in decision neuroscience are discussed, and a need to investigate cultural differences in the IGT studies is pointed out.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
India 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 49 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Student > Master 8 15%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Professor 4 8%
Other 15 28%
Unknown 5 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 28 53%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Decision Sciences 3 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 7 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 July 2012.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#8,065
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,459
of 250,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#106
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 250,101 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 154 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.