Affective and Deliberative Processes in Risky Choice: Age Differences in Risk Taking in the Columbia Card Task

Figner, Bernd; Mackinlay, Rachael J.; Wilkening, Friedrich; Weber, Elke U.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1420297

Cited by 184 publications

(400 citation statements)

References 84 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

364

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It should be also acknowledged that not every kind of memory processes and decision-making task has been investigated in the present study. In particular, we have not investigated implicit memory processes (e.g., Berry & Broadbent, 1987, 1988), which may support complex dynamic decision making and some forms of intuitive judgment or decision, and we have not examined less structured decision tasks (like option generation: Del Missier & Terpini, 2009; Gettys, Pliske, Manning & Casey, 1987) or the so-called ‘hot’ or ‘affective’ decision-making tasks (e.g., Figner, Mackinlay, Wilkening & Weber, 2009). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The multifold relationship between memory and decision making: An individual-differences study.

Missier¹,

Mäntylä²,

Hansson³

et al. 2013

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several judgment and decision-making tasks are assumed to involve memory functions, but significant knowledge gaps on the memory processes underlying these tasks remain. In a study on 568 adults between 25 to 80 years, hypotheses were tested on the specific relationships between individual differences in working memory, episodic memory, and semantic memory, respectively, and six main components of decision-making competence. In line with the hypotheses, working memory was positively related with the more cognitively-demanding tasks (Resistance to Framing, Applying Decision Rules, and Under/Overconfidence), whereas episodic memory was positively associated with a more experience-based judgment task (Recognizing Social Norms). Furthermore, semantic memory was positively related with two more knowledge-based decision-making tasks (Consistency in Risk Perception and Resistance to Sunk Costs). Finally, the age-related decline observed in some of the decision-making tasks was (partially or totally) mediated by the age-related decline in working memory or episodic memory. These findings are discussed in relation to the functional roles fulfilled by different memory processes in judgment and decision-making tasks.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The multifold relationship between memory and decision making: An individual-differences study.

Missier¹,

Mäntylä²,

Hansson³

et al. 2013

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, although we observed age-related differences in reappraisal success in the present studies, both of these experiments asked participants to reappraise in a relatively controlled environment while using a very specific type of stimuli. Prior work has shown that adolescents perform disproportionately worse on decision making and executive function tasks when tested in the presence of peers or when responding to affectively arousing stimuli (Cauffman et al, 2010; Figner et al, 2009; Gardner & Steinberg, 2005). Thus, future work should examine how developmental improvements in reappraisal success are impacted by social context and stimulus type.…”

Section: Study 2: Social Factors In the Development Of Emotion Regulamentioning

confidence: 99%

Age-related differences in emotional reactivity, regulation, and rejection sensitivity in adolescence.

Silvers¹,

McRae²,

Gabrieli³

et al. 2012

Emotion

393

372

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although adolescents’ emotional lives are thought to be more turbulent than those of adults, it is unknown whether this difference is attributable to developmental changes in emotional reactivity or emotion regulation. Study 1 addressed this question by presenting healthy individuals aged 10–23 with negative and neutral pictures and asking them to respond naturally or use cognitive reappraisal to down-regulate their responses on a trial-by-trial basis. Results indicated that age exerted both linear and quadratic effects on regulation success but was unrelated to emotional reactivity. Study 2 replicated and extended these findings using a different reappraisal task and further showed that situational (i.e., social vs. nonsocial stimuli) and dispositional (i.e., level of rejection sensitivity) social factors interacted with age to predict regulation success: young adolescents were less successful at regulating responses to social than to nonsocial stimuli, particularly if the adolescents were high in rejection sensitivity. Taken together, these results have important implications for the inclusion of emotion regulation in models of emotional and cognitive development.

show abstract

“…Figner, Mackinlay, Wilkening, & Weber, 2009). Current work aims to define the necessary and sufficient features of environmental cues and contexts that lead to heightened approach motivational behavior in adolescents.…”

Section: Motivational Definitions and Operationalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanisms of motivation–cognition interaction: challenges and opportunities

Braver

Krug

Chiew

et al. 2014

Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci

327

252

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent years have seen a rejuvenation of interest in studies of motivation–cognition interactions arising from many different areas of psychology and neuroscience. The present issue of Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience provides a sampling of some of the latest research from a number of these different areas. In this introductory article, we provide an overview of the current state of the field, in terms of key research developments and candidate neural mechanisms receiving focused investigation as potential sources of motivation–cognition interaction. However, our primary goal is conceptual: to highlight the distinct perspectives taken by different research areas, in terms of how motivation is defined, the relevant dimensions and dissociations that are emphasized, and the theoretical questions being targeted. Together, these distinctions present both challenges and opportunities for efforts aiming toward a more unified and cross-disciplinary approach. We identify a set of pressing research questions calling for this sort of cross-disciplinary approach, with the explicit goal of encouraging integrative and collaborative investigations directed toward them.

show abstract

Affective and Deliberative Processes in Risky Choice: Age Differences in Risk Taking in the Columbia Card Task

Cited by 184 publications

References 84 publications

The multifold relationship between memory and decision making: An individual-differences study.

The multifold relationship between memory and decision making: An individual-differences study.

Age-related differences in emotional reactivity, regulation, and rejection sensitivity in adolescence.

Mechanisms of motivation–cognition interaction: challenges and opportunities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About