The Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) is one of the most prominent paradigms employed for the assessment of risk taking in the laboratory, and it was shown to distinguish between various patient groups and controls. The present study was conducted to test the psychometric characteristics of the original IGT and of a new gambling task variant for assessing individual differences. Two studies were conducted with adults of the general population (n = 220) and with adolescents (n = 389). Participants were also tested on multiple measures of working memory capacity, fluid intelligence, personality traits associated with risk-taking behavior, and self-reported risk taking in various domains. Both gambling tasks had only moderate retest reliability within the same session. Moderate relations were obtained with cognitive ability. However, card selections in the gambling tasks were not correlated with personality or risk taking. These findings point to limitations of IGT type gambling tasks for the assessment of individual differences in risky decision making.
BayardS.RaffardS.Gely-NargeotM.-C. (2011). Do facets of self-reported impulsivity predict decision-making under ambiguity and risk? Evidence from a community sample. Psychiatry Research, 190, 322-326.
2.
BeauducelA.StrobelA.BrockeB. (2003). Psychometric properties and norms of a German version of the Sensation Seeking Scales, Form V. Diagnostica, 49(2), 61-72.
BecharaA.DamasioA. R.DamasioH.AndersonS. W. (1994). Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition, 50(1-3), 7-15.
5.
BecharaA.DamasioH. (2002). Decision-making and addiction (part I): Impaired activation of somatic states in substance dependent individuals when pondering decisions with negative future consequences. Neuropsychologia, 40, 1675-1689.
6.
BecharaA.DamasioH.DamasioA. R. (2000). Emotion, decision making and the orbitofrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 10, 295-307.
7.
BecharaA.DolanS.HindesA. (2002). Decision-making and addiction (part II): Myopia for the future or hypersensitivity to reward?Neuropsychologia, 40, 1690-1705.
8.
BeitzK. M.SalthouseT. A.DavisH. P. (2014). Performance on the Iowa Gambling Task: From 5 to 89 years of age. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 1677-1689.
9.
BlaisA.-R.WeberE. U. (2006). A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations. Judgment and Decision Making, 1(1), 33-47.
10.
BowmanC. H.EvansC. E.TurnbullO. 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.
11.
BrandM.GrecoR.SchusterA.KalbeE.FujiwaraE.MarkowitschH. J.KesslerJ. (2002). The game of dice: A new test for the assessment of risk-taking behavior. Neurorehabilitation & Neural Repair, 16, 142-143.
12.
BrandM.RecknorE. C.GrabenhorstF.BecharaA. (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.
13.
BuelowM. T.OkdieB. M.BlaineA. 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, ArtID 773.
14.
BuelowM. T.SuhrJ. A. (2009). Construct validity of the Iowa Gambling Task. Neuropsychology Review, 19(1), 102-114.
15.
BuelowM. T.SuhrJ. A. (2013). Personality characteristics and state mood influence individual deck selections on the Iowa Gambling Task. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 593-597.
16.
CaseyB.GetzS.GalvanA. (2008). The adolescent brain. Developmental Review, 28(1), 62-77.
17.
CauffmanE.ShulmanE. P.SteinbergL.ClausE.BanichM. T.GrahamS.WoolardJ. (2010). Age differences in affective decision making as indexed by performance on the Iowa Gambling Task. Developmental Psychology, 46(1), 193-207.
18.
CellaM.DymondS.CooperA.TurnbullO. (2007). Effects of decision-phase time constraints on emotion-based learning in the Iowa Gambling Task. Brain and Cognition, 64, 164-169.
19.
ColombettiG. (2008). The somatic marker hypotheses, and what the Iowa Gambling Task does and does not show. British Journal of Philosophy of Science, 59, 51-71.
20.
ConwayA. R. A.KaneM. J.BuntingM. F.HambrickD. Z.WilhelmO.EngleR. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 769-786.
21.
CorrP. J. (Ed.). (2008). The reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
22.
CydersM. A.CoskunpinarA. (2011). Measurement of constructs using self-report and behavioral lab tasks: Is there overlap in nomothetic span and construct representation for impulsivity?Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 965-982.
23.
CydersM. A.CoskunpinarA. (2012). The relationship between self-report and lab task conceptualizations of impulsivity. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(1), 121-124.
24.
DunnB. D.DalgleishT.LawrenceA. D. (2006). The somatic marker hypothesis: A critical evaluation. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30, 239-271.
25.
FrankenI. H.MurisP. (2005). Individual differences in decision-making. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 991-998.
26.
FriedmanN. P.MiyakeA. (2004). The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 101-135.
27.
GanslerD. A.JerramM. W.VannorsdallT. D.SchretlenD. J. (2011). Does the Iowa Gambling Task measure executive function?Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 26, 706-717.
28.
GrayJ. A.McNaughtonN. (2000). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An inquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
29.
GreeneK.KrcmarM.WaltersL. H.RubinD. L.HaleJ. L. (2000). Targeting adolescent risk-taking behaviors: The contribution of egocentrism and sensation-seeking. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 439-461.
30.
GreenwaldA. G.BanajiM. R.RudmanL. A.FarnhamS. D.NosekB. A.MellottD. S. (2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept. Psychological Review, 109(1), 3-25.
31.
HardenK.Tucker-DrobE. M. (2011). Individual differences in the development of sensation seeking and impulsivity during adolescence: Further evidence for a dual systems model. Developmental Psychology, 47, 739-746.
32.
HertwigR.ErevI. (2009). The description-experience gap in risky choice. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 517-523.
33.
HøjsgaardS.HalekohU.YanJ. (2006). The R Package geepack for Generalized Estimating Equations. Journal of Statistical Software, 15(2), 1-11.
34.
HonakerJ.KingG.BlackwellM. (2011). Amelia II: A program for missing data. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(7), 1-47.
35.
HorstmannA.VillringerA.NeumannJ. (2012). Iowa gambling task: There is more to consider than long-term outcome. Using a linear equation model to disentangle the impact of outcome and frequency of gains and losses. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 6, 61.
36.
JägerA. O.SüßH.-M.BeauducelA. (1997). Berliner Intelligenzstruktur-Test: Form 4 [Berlin Intelligence Structure Test]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
37.
JohnsonJ. G.WilkeA.WeberE. U. (2004). A domain-specific scale measuring risk perceptions, expected benefits, and perceived-risk attitude in German-speaking populations. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 35, 153-163.
38.
KaufmanS. B.DeYoungC. G.GrayJ. R.BrownJ.MackintoshN. (2009). Associative learning predicts intelligence above and beyond working memory and processing speed. Intelligence, 37, 374-382.
39.
KeyeD.WilhelmO.OberauerK. (2009). Structure and correlates of the German version of the Brief UPPS impulsive behavior scales. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25, 175-185.
40.
KeyeD.WilhelmO.OberauerK.van RavenzwaaijD. (2009). Individual differences in conflict-monitoring: Testing means and covariance hypothesis about the Simon and the Eriksen Flanker task. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 73, 762-776.
41.
LauriolaM.PannoA.LevinI. P.LejuezC. W. (2014). Individual differences in risky decision making: A meta-analysis of sensation seeking and impulsivity with the balloon analogue risk task. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 27, 20-36.
42.
LejuezC.AklinW. M.JonesH. A.RichardsJ. B.StrongD. R.KahlerC. W.ReadJ. P. (2003). The balloon analogue risk task (BART) differentiates smokers and nonsmokers. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 11, 26-33.
43.
LejuezC.ReadJ. P.KahlerC. W.RichardsJ. B.RamseyS. E.StuartG. L.. . . BrownR. A. (2002). Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: The Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8(2), 75-84.
44.
LewandowskyS. (2011). Working memory capacity and categorization: Individual differences and modeling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 720-738.
45.
MaiaT. V.McClellandJ. L. (2004). A reexamination of the evidence for the somatic marker hypothesis: What participants really know in the Iowa Gambling Task. Proceedings of the National Academy for Science U S A, 101, 16075-16080.
46.
MataR.JosefA. K.Samanez-LarkinG. R.HertwigR. (2016). Age differences in risky choice: A meta-analysis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1235, 18-29. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06200.x
47.
OrtnerT. M.ProyerR. T.KubingerK. D. (2006). Theorie und Praxis Objektiver Persönlichkeitstests [Theory and application of objective persoanliyt tests]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.
48.
PleskacT. J. (2008). Decision making and learning while taking sequential risks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 167-185.
49.
R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
50.
RevelleW. (2015). Psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research (Version 1.5.1.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
51.
RobertiJ. W. (2004). A review of behavioral and biological correlates of sensation seeking. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 256-279.
52.
SchmitzF.ManskeK.PreckelF.WilhelmO. (2016). The multiple faces of risk taking: Scoring alternatives for the balloon analogue risk task. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32, 17-38. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000335
53.
SimonsJ. S.DvorakR. D.BatienB. D. (2008). Methamphetamine use in a rural college population: Associations with marijuana use, sensitivity to punishment, and sensitivity to reward. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 22, 444-449.
54.
StahlC.VossA.SchmitzF.NuszbaumM.TüscherO.LiebK.KlauerK. C. (2014). Behavioral components of impulsivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 850-886. doi:10.1037/a0033981
55.
SteinbergL. (2010). A dual systems model of adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Psychobiology, 52, 216-224.
56.
SteingroeverH.WetzelsR.HorstmannA.NeumannJ.WagenmakersE.-J. (2012). Performance of healthy participants on the Iowa Gambling Task. Psychological Assessment, 25, 180-193.
57.
SuhrJ. A.TsanadisJ. (2007). Affect and personality correlates of the Iowa Gambling Task. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 27-36.
58.
TamezE.MyersonJ.HaleS. (2012). Contributions of associative learning to age and individual differences in fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 40, 518-529.
59.
TombI.HauserM.DeldinP.CaramazzaA. (2002). Do somatic markers mediate decisions on the gambling task? [Letter]. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 1103-1104.
60.
ToplakM. E.SorgeG. B.BenoitA.WestR. F.StanovichK. E. (2010). Decision-making and cognitive abilities: A review of associations between Iowa Gambling Task performance, executive functions, and intelligence. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 562-581.
61.
TorrubiaR.AvilaC.CaserasX. (2008). Reinforcement sensitivity scales. In CorrP. J. (Ed.), The reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality (pp. 188-227). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
62.
TorrubiaR.AvilaC.MoltoJ.CaserasX. (2001). The Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire (SPSRQ) as a measure of Gray’s anxiety and impulsivity dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 837-862.
63.
TownsendL.FlisherA. J.GilreathT.KingG. (2006). A systematic literature review of tobacco use among adults 15 years and older in sub-Saharan Africa. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 84, 14-27.
64.
van HonkJ.HermansE. J.PutmanP.MontagneB.SchutterD. J. (2002). Defective somatic markers in sub-clinical psychopathy. NeuroReport, 13, 1025-1027.
65.
WhitesideS. P.LynamD. R. (2001). The Five Factor Model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 669-689.
66.
WilhelmO.HildebrandtA.OberauerK. (2013). What is working memory capacity, and how can we measure it?Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 433. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00433
67.
WilhelmO.SchulzeR. (2002). The relation of speeded and unspeeded reasoning with mental speed. Intelligence, 30, 537-554.
68.
WittmannW. W.SuessH.-M. (1999). Investigating the paths between working memory, intelligence, knowledge, and complex problem-solving performances via Brunswik symmetry. In AckermanP. L.KyllonenP. C.RobertsR. D. (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: Process, trait, and content determinants (pp. 77-108). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
69.
XuS.KorczykowskiM.ZhuS.RaoH. (2013). Risk-taking and impulsive behaviors: A comparative assessment of three tasks. Social Behavior and Personality, 41, 477-486.
70.
ZermattenA.Van der LindenM.d ‘AcremontM.JermannF.BecharaA. (2005). Impulsivity and decision making. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 193, 647-650.
71.
ZuckermanM. (1996). Item revisions in the Sensation Seeking Scale Form V (SSS-V). Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 515-515.
72.
ZuckermanM. (2007). The Sensation Seeking Scale V (SSS-V): Still reliable and valid. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1303-1305.
73.
ZuckermanM.KuhlmanD. (2000). Personality and risk-taking: Common biosocial factors. Journal of Personality, 68, 999-1029.
