Information Use Differences in Hot and Cold Risk Processing: When Does Information About Probability Count in the Columbia Card Task?

Deliberative and Affective Risky Decisions in Teenagers: Different Associations with Maladaptive Psychological Functioning and Difficulties in Emotion Regulation?

Using network analysis, we investigated the relationships between maladaptive psychological functioning, difficulties in emotion regulation, and risk-taking in deliberative and affective behavioral decisions. Participants (103 adolescents aged between 13 and 19 years, 62% boys) took the Cold (deliberative) and Hot (affective) versions of the Columbia Card Task and completed the Youth Self-Report (YSR) and the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS). In contrast to the view that risk propensity increases from preadolescence to middle adolescence and decreases at later ages, our study revealed no age-specific trend. YSR syndrome scales were significantly correlated with risk propensity, but only in the Cold version. The YSR Thought Problems scale was the most central node in the network, linking internalizing and externalizing problems with risk propensity in the Cold CCT. Lack of emotional Clarity was the only DERS consistently linked with risk-taking both in correlation and network analyses. Maladaptive psychological functioning and difficulties in emotion regulation were linked with risk propensity in affective risky decisions through deliberative processes. The statistical significance of direct and indirect effects was further examined using nonparametric mediation analyses. Our study highlights the role of cognitive factors that in each variable set might account for risk-taking in teenagers.

Sensitivity to gains during risky decision-making differentiates chronic cocaine users from stimulant-naïve controls

BACKGROUND

Chronic cocaine use has been consistently associated with decision-making impairments that contribute to the development and maintenance of drug-taking. However, the underlying cognitive processes of risk-seeking behaviours observed in chronic cocaine users (CU) have so far remained unclear. Here we therefore tested whether CU differ from stimulant-naïve controls in their sensitivity to gain, loss, and probability of loss information when making decisions under risk.

METHOD

A sample of 96 participants (56 CU and 40 controls) performed the no-feedback version of the Columbia Card Task, designed to assess risk-taking in relation to gain, loss, and probability of loss information. Additionally, cognitive performance and impulsivity were determined. Current and recent substance use was objectively assessed by toxicological urine and hair analysis.

RESULTS

Compared to controls, CU showed increased risk-seeking in unfavourable decision scenarios in which the loss probability was high and the returns were low, and a tendency for increased risk aversion in more favourable decision scenarios. In comparison to controls, CU were less sensitive to gain, but similarly sensitive to loss and probability of loss information. Further analysis revealed that individual differences in sensitivity to loss and probability of loss information were related to cognitive performance and impulsivity.

CONCLUSION

Reduced sensitivity to gains in people with CU may contribute to their propensity for making risky decisions. While these alterations in gain sensitivity might directly relate to cocaine use per se, the individual psychopathological profile of CU might moderate sensitivity to loss information.

Effects of Total and Partial Sleep Deprivation on Reflection Impulsivity and Risk-Taking in Deliberative Decision-Making

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of total and partial sleep deprivation on reflection impulsivity and risk-taking in tasks requiring deliberative decision-making processes.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

Seventy-four healthy young adults were selected to participate in two independent experiments, each consisting of a crossover design. In Experiment 1, 32 participants were tested after one night of regular sleep (RS), and after one night of total sleep deprivation (TSD). In Experiment 2, 42 participants were tested following five nights of RS and after five nights of partial sleep deprivation (PSD), implying five hours of sleep per night. In both the experiments, two deliberative decision-making tasks were administered, involving different decision-making constructs. The Mosaic Task (MT) assessed reflection impulsivity, the tendency to gather information before making a decision. The Columbia Card Task cold version (CCTc) evaluated risk-taking propensity in a dynamic environment.

RESULTS

Unlike TSD, PSD led to an increment of reflection impulsivity and risk-taking. Nevertheless, analyses taking into account the individuals' baseline (RS) performance showed consistent results between the two experimental sleep manipulations. Participants who gathered more information to make decisions in the MT when well-rested, then relied on less evidence under sleep loss, and more cautious participants in the CCTc tended to make riskier decisions.

CONCLUSION

Results pointed to differential consequences of sleep deprivation depending on the habitual way to respond during decision-making involving deliberative reasoning processes. Results were interpreted according to a putative interaction between sleep loss effect and individual difference factors.

Information use in risky decision making: Do age differences depend on affective context?

The current study focused on the degree to which decision context (deliberative vs. affective) differentially impacted the use of available information about uncertainty (i.e., probability, positive and negative outcome magnitudes, expected value, and variance/risk) when older adults were faced with decisions under risk. In addition, we examined whether individual differences in general mental ability and executive function moderated the associations between age and information use. Participants (N = 96) completed a neuropsychological assessment and the hot (affective) and cold (deliberative) versions of an explicit risk task. Our results did not find a significant Age × Hot/Cold Condition interaction on overall risk-taking. However, we found that older adults were less likely to use the full decision information available regardless of the decision context. This finding suggested more global age differences in information use. Moreover, older adults were less likely to make expected-value sensitive decisions, regardless of the hot/cold context. Finally, we found that low performance on measures of executive functioning, but not general mental ability, appears to be a risk factor for lower information use. This pattern appears in middle age and progressively becomes stronger in older age. The current work provides evidence that common underlying decision processes may operate in risk tasks deemed either affective or deliberative. It further suggests that underlying mechanisms such as information use may be paramount, relative to differences in the affective context. Additionally, individual differences in neuropsychological function may act as a moderator in the tendency to use available information across affective context. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Uncovering the structure of self-regulation through data-driven ontology discovery

Psychological sciences have identified a wealth of cognitive processes and behavioral phenomena, yet struggle to produce cumulative knowledge. Progress is hamstrung by siloed scientific traditions and a focus on explanation over prediction, two issues that are particularly damaging for the study of multifaceted constructs like self-regulation. Here, we derive a psychological ontology from a study of individual differences across a broad range of behavioral tasks, self-report surveys, and self-reported real-world outcomes associated with self-regulation. Though both tasks and surveys putatively measure self-regulation, they show little empirical relationship. Within tasks and surveys, however, the ontology identifies reliable individual traits and reveals opportunities for theoretic synthesis. We then evaluate predictive power of the psychological measurements and find that while surveys modestly and heterogeneously predict real-world outcomes, tasks largely do not. We conclude that self-regulation lacks coherence as a construct, and that data-driven ontologies lay the groundwork for a cumulative psychological science.

Scientific progress relies on integrating and building on existing knowledge. Here, the authors propose improving cumulative science by developing data-driven ontologies, and they apply this approach to understanding the construct of self-regulation.

Event-related potentials in response to feedback following risk-taking in the hot version of the Columbia Card Task

Given the importance of risk-taking in individuals' personal and professional life, several behavioral tasks for measuring the construct have been developed. Recently, a new task was introduced, the Columbia Card Task (CCT). This task measures participants' risk levels and establishes how sensitive participants are to gains, losses, and probabilities when taking risk. So far, the CCT has been examined in behavioral studies and in combination with several (neuro)biological techniques. However, no electroencephalography (EEG) research has been done on the task. The present study fills this gap and helps to validate this relatively new experimental task. To this end, n = 126 students were asked to complete self-reports (reward responsiveness, impulsiveness, and sensation-seeking) and to perform the CCT (and other risk tasks) in an EEG setup. The results show that feedback appraisal after risky decision-making in the CCT was accompanied by a feedback-related negativity (FRN) and a P300, which were stronger in response to negative than positive feedback. Correlations between the FRN and P300 difference wave on the one hand and risk-related self-reports and behavior on the other were nonsignificant and small, but were mostly in the expected direction. This pattern did not change after excluding participants with psychiatric/neurological disorders and outliers. Excluding participants with reversed (positive > negative) difference waves strengthened FRN correlations. The impact such individuals can have on the data should be taken into account in future studies. Regarding the CCT in particular, future studies should also address its oddball structure and its masking of true values (censoring).

Many face(t)s of young people’s risk-taking: Individual and situational determinants

Background

Adolescence and young adulthood are frequently characterised by a strong propensity to take risks. Yet, empirical data shows that personality traits, type and features of risk measures, or presence of additional incentives can significantly influence one’s risk-taking tendency. Our aim was to investigate young people’s risk-taking and point out when and how individual and situational factors may increase or decrease their risk-taking propensity.

Participants and procedure

Participants were adolescents and emerging adults (N = 173, age range: 13-30). Each completed two behavioural risk measures (“hot” and “cold” decision tasks) in two conditions, with or without financial incentives. Questionnaires assessing self-declared risk-taking, sensation seeking, and impulsivity were also used. Statistical analyses were conducted with gender and age as additional factors.

Results

In “hot” risk tasks all participants risked the same, while the tendency to take risks in “cold” tasks was higher for older participants, especially in the presence of incentives. Males risked more than females, apart from “hot” incentivised tasks where no gender differences were found. Sensation seeking and impulsivity were significant predictors of risk-taking in “hot” incentivised tasks, while performance in “cold” non-incentivised tasks depended on sensation seeking only.

Conclusions

Our results show that risk-taking is not a unitary phenomenon, and young people are not universal risk-takers. Certain personality traits seem to predispose this group to taking risks, but only in some circumstances (e.g. “hot” decisions). Factors such as task context or additional incentives can not only increase but also decrease risk-taking in young people, resulting in more caution on their behalf.