Cited by 580Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsGambling Behavior and Treatments

Decision-making and addiction (part II): myopia for the future or hypersensitivity to reward?

Bechara, Antoine, Dolan, Sara, Hindes, Andrea·2002·Neuropsychologia

Abstract

On a decision-making instrument known as the "gambling task" (GT), a subgroup of substance dependent individuals (SDI) opted for choices that yield high immediate gains in spite of higher future losses. This resembles the behavior of patients with ventromedial (VM) prefrontal cortex lesions. In this study, we addressed the possibility that hypersensitivity to reward may account for the "myopia" for the future in this subgroup of SDI. We used a variant version of the GT, in which the good decks yielded high immediate punishment but higher delayed reward. The bad decks yielded low immediate punishment and lower delayed reward. We measured the skin conductance response (SCR) of subjects after receiving reward (reward SCR) and during their pondering from which deck to choose (anticipatory SCR). A subgroup of SDI who was not impaired on the original GT performed normally on the variant GT. The subgroup of SDI who was impaired on the original GT showed two levels of performance on the variant GT. One subgroup (36% of the sample) performed poorly on the variant GT, and showed similar behavioral and physiological impairments to VM patients. The other subgroup of SDI (64% of the sample) performed normally on the variant task, but had abnormally large physiological responses to reward, i.e. large SCR after receiving reward (reward SCR) and large SCR in anticipation of outcomes that yield large reward. Thus, the combined cognitive and physiological approach of assessing decision-making characterizes three sub-populations of SDI. One sub-population is without impairments that can be detected by any measure of the GT paradigm. Another sub-population is similar to VM patients in that they are insensitive to the future, both positive and negative. A third sub-population is hypersensitive to reward, so that the presence or the prospect of receiving, reward dominates their behavior.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0028-3932(02)00016-7

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bechara, A., Dolan, S., & Hindes, A.
Affiliations
University of Iowa (US)
Corresponding author
Bechara, Antoine
Venue
Neuropsychologia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2002-01
Volume
40
Issue
10
Pages
1690-1705
ISSN
0028-3932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2133401211
Cited by
580
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 40
FWCI
11.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuropsychologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA011779, DA11779-02)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
Keywords
substance dependence, decision-making, gambling task, reward sensitivity, ventromedial prefrontal cortex, delayed rewards, skin conductance response, impulsivity
MeSH terms
Adult, Decision Making, Female, Galvanic Skin Response, Gambling, Humans, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Punishment, Reward, Risk-Taking, Task Performance and Analysis, Prefrontal Cortex, Substance-Related Disorders, Somatosensory Disorders

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