Cited by 36Psychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Alexithymia, cumulative feedback, and differential response patterns on the iowa gambling task

Ferguson, Eamonn, Bibby, Peter A., Rosamond, Sara, O'Grady, Claire, Parcell, Alison, Amos, Christopher, McCutcheon, Christine, O'Carroll, Ronan·2009·Journal of Personality

Abstract

Although the role of emotional processing is central to contemporary models of risky decision making, to date the role of trait emotional understanding has not been explored experimentally in this context. The current experiment (N=326) explores the role of alexithymia with respect to performance on the standard Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) and a version where cumulative financial feedback is obscured. Standard learning on the IGT was observed for those low in alexithymia. Those high in alexithymia learned to avoid disadvantageous decks over the first half of the task. However, over the later trials they showed a change in performance, shifting from advantageous to disadvantageous and back to advantageous decks again (termed an "explore-learn-change-return" strategy). It is argued that this is due to an inability to fully consolidate earlier learning and reduced sensitivity to losses. The absence of cumulative feedback independently resulted in reduced performance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00568.x

Cites

46 of 46 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?

  • Individuals with alexithymia make riskier choices on the Iowa Gambling Task than those with low alexithymia levels, especially when less information is available concerning their previous cumulative performance.

    “Individuals with alexithymia, for example, have been found to make riskier choices on the Iowa gambling task than those with low alexithymia levels, especially when less information was available concerning their previous cumulative performance (Ferguson et al., 2009).”

    From Atypical interoception as a common risk factor for psychopathology: A review (2021) · cites this paper as Ferguson et al., 2009

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ferguson, E., Bibby, P. A., Rosamond, S., O'Grady, C., Parcell, A., Amos, C., McCutcheon, C., & O'Carroll, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • University of Stirling (GB)
Corresponding author
Ferguson, Eamonn
Venue
Journal of Personality
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-04-22
Volume
77
Issue
3
Pages
883-902
ISSN
  • 0022-3506 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-6494
OpenAlex
W2115289784
Cited by
36
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
alexithymia, Iowa Gambling Task, risky decision making, emotional processing, emotional understanding, learning consolidation, loss sensitivity, strategic change
MeSH terms
Affective Symptoms, Female, Gambling, Humans, Individuality, Learning, Male, Psychological Tests, Feedback, Psychological, Young Adult

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