Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Psychol Assess. 2013 Mar;25(1):180-93. doi: 10.1037/a0029929. Epub 2012 Sep 17.
The Iowa Gambling Task (IGT; Bechara, Damasio, Damasio, & Anderson, 1994) is often used to assess decision-making deficits in clinical populations. The interpretation of the results hinges on 3 key assumptions: (a) healthy participants learn to prefer the good options over the bad options; (b) healthy participants show homogeneous choice behavior; and (c) healthy participants first explore the different options and then exploit the most profitable ones. Here we test these assumptions using 2 extensive literature reviews and analysis of 8 data sets. The results show that all 3 assumptions may be invalid; that is, (a) healthy participants often prefer decks with infrequent losses; (b) healthy participants show idiosyncratic choice behavior; and (c) healthy participants do not show a systematic decrease in the number of switches across trials. Our findings question the prevailing interpretation of IGT data and suggest that, in future applications of the IGT, key assumptions about performance of healthy participants warrant close scrutiny.
爱荷华赌博任务(IGT;Bechara、Damasio、Damasio 和 Anderson,1994)常用于评估临床人群的决策缺陷。结果的解释取决于 3 个关键假设:(a)健康参与者学会偏好好的选项而不是坏的选项;(b)健康参与者表现出同质的选择行为;(c)健康参与者首先探索不同的选项,然后利用最有利可图的选项。在这里,我们使用 2 项广泛的文献综述和对 8 个数据集的分析来检验这些假设。结果表明,所有 3 个假设都可能不成立;即(a)健康参与者通常更喜欢损失频率较低的牌组;(b)健康参与者表现出特殊的选择行为;(c)健康参与者在试验过程中并没有表现出开关数量的系统减少。我们的发现质疑了 IGT 数据的主流解释,并表明在未来 IGT 的应用中,对健康参与者表现的关键假设值得仔细审查。