CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 12

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Heterogeneity in choices on Iowa Gambling Task: preference for infrequent–high magnitude punishment

Singh, Varsha, Khan, Azizuddin·2009·Mind & Society
DOI 10.1007/s11299-008-0050-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11299-008-0050-1

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Bark R, Dieckmann S, Bogerts B, Northoff G (2005) Deficit in decision making in catatonic schizophrenia: an exploratory study. Psychiat Res 134:131–141 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Bechara A, Damasio H (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 · DOI
  3. Bechara A, Damasio A, Damasio H, Anderson S (1994) Insensitivity to future consequence following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition 50:7–15 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bechara A, Tranel D, Damasio H (2000) Characterization of the decision making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions. Brain 123:2189–2202 · DOI
  5. Cohen M, Ranganath C (2005) Behavioral and neural predictors of upcoming decisions. Cogn Affect Behav Ne 5(2):117–126 · DOI
  6. Crone E, Vendel I, Van der Molen M (2003) Decision making in disinhibited adolescents and adults: insensitivity to future consequences or driven by immediate reward? Pers Indiv Differ 35:1625–1641 · DOI
  7. Crone E, Bunge S, Latenstein H, Van der Molen M (2005) Charaterization of children’s decision making: sensitivity to punishment frequency, not task complexity. Child Neuropsychol 11:245–263 · DOI
  8. Damasio A (1994) Descartes error. Macmillan, London
  9. Davis C, Patte K, Tweed S, Curtis C (2007) Personality traits associated with decision making deficits. Pers Indiv Differ 42:279–290 · DOI
  10. Dunn B, Dalgleish T, Lawrence A (2006) The somatic marker hypothesis: a critical review. Neurosci and Biobehav R 30:239–271 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Epstein S (1983) The unconscious, the preconscious and the self-concept. In: Suls J, Greenwald A (eds) Psychological perspectives on the self Hillsdale, vol 2. Erlbaum, NJ, pp 219–247
  12. Epstein S (2003) Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality. In: Millon T, Lerner MJ (eds) Comprehensive handbook of psychology, vol 5: personality and social psychology. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp 159–184 · DOI
  13. Epstein S, Pacini R, Denes-Raj V, Heier H (1996) Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. J Pers Soc Psychol 71:390–405 · DOI
  14. Fernie G, Tunney RJ (2006) Some decks are better than others: the effect of reinforcer type and task instructions on learning in the Iowa Gambling Task. Brain Cogn 60:94–102 · DOI
  15. Fishbein D, Eldreth D, Matochik J, Isenberg I, Hyde C, London E (2005) Cognitive performance and autonomic reactivity in abstinent drug abusers and nonusers. Exp Clin Psychopharm 13(1):25–40 · DOI
  16. Franken I, Muris P (2005) Individual differences in decision making. Pers Indiv Differ 39:991–998 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Fukui H, Murai T, Fukuyama H, Hayashi T, Hanakawa T (2005) Functional activity related to risk anticipation during performance of the Iowa gambling task. NeuroImage 24:253–259 · DOI
  18. Gray J (1987) The psychology of fear and stress. University Press, Cambridge
  19. Lin C, Chiu Y, Lee P, Hsieh J (2007) Is deck B a disadvantageous deck in the Iowa Gambling Task? Behav Brain Funct 3:16 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Loewenstein G, Prelec D (1992) Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation. Q J Econ 107(2):573–597 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Loewenstein G, Weber E, Hsee C, Welch N (2001) Risk as a feelings. Psychol Bull 127:267–286 · DOI · Paper page
  22. MacPherson S, Phillips L, Della Sala S (2002) Age, executive function, and social decision making: a dorsolateral prefrontal theory of cognitive aging. Psychol Aging 17(4):598–609 · DOI
  23. Overman W, Frassrand K, Ansel S, Trawalter S, Bies B, Redmond A (2004) Performance on the IOWA card task by adolescents and adults. Neuropsychologia 42:1838–1851 · DOI
  24. Pacini R, Epstein S (1999) The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. J Pers Soc Psychol 76:972–987 · DOI
  25. Peters E, Slovic P (2000) The springs of action: affective and analytical information processing in choice. Person Soc Psychol B 26(12):1465–1475 · DOI
  26. Ritter L, Meador-Woodruff J, Dalack G (2004) Neurocognitive measures of prefrontal cortical dysfunction in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Res 68:65–73 · DOI
  27. Schwartz B (2000) Self determination: the tyranny of freedom. Am Psychol 55:79–88 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Schwartz B, Ward A, Monterosso J, Lyubomirsky S, White K, Lehman D (2002) Maximizing versus satisficing: happiness is a matter of choice. J Pers Soc Psychol 83:1178–1197 · DOI
  29. Shiloh S, Salton E, Sharabi D (2002) Individual differences in rational and intuitive thinking styles as predictors of heuristic responses and framing effects. Pers Indiv Differ 32(3):415–429 · DOI
  30. Shiloh S, Shenhav-Sheffer M (2004) Structure of difficulties in mate-selection decisions and its relation to rational and intuitive cognitive styles. Pers Indiv Differ 37:259–273 · DOI
  31. Shurman B, Horan W, Nuechterlein K (2005) Schizophrenia patients demonstrate a distinctive pattern of decision-making impairment on the Iowa Gambling Task. Schizophrenia Res 72(2–3):215–224 · DOI
  32. Simon H (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Q J Econ 59:99–118 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Suhr J, Tsanadis J (2007) Affect and personality correlated of Iowa gambling Task. Pers Indiv Differ 43:27–36 · DOI
  34. Tomb I, Hauser M, Deldin P, Caramazza A (2002) Do somatic markers mediate decisions on gambling task. Nat Neurosci 5:1103–1104 · DOI
  35. van Honk J, Hermans E, Putman P, Montagne B, Schutter D (2002) Defective somatic markers in sub-clinical psychopathy. Neuroreport 13:1025–1027 · DOI
  36. van den Bos R, Houx B, Spruijt B (2006) The effect of reward magnitude differences on choosing disadvantageous decks in the Iowa Gambling Task. Biol Psychol 71(2):155–161 · DOI
  37. Weber E, Blais A, Betz N (2002) A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. J Behav Decis Making 15:263–290 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Wilder K, Weinberger D, Goldberg T (1998) Operant conditioning and the orbitofrontal cortex in schizophrenic patients: unexpected evidence for intact functioning. Schizophrenia Res 30:169–174 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 12

Metadata

Authors
Singh, V., & Khan, A.
Venue
Mind & Society
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2008-08-16
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
43-57
ISSN
  • 1593-7879
  • 1860-1839
DOI
10.1007/s11299-008-0050-1
Cited by
12
References
1
Language
en
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review