Cited by 3,547Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsCognitive Science and Education Research

Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy

Bechara, Antoine, Damasio, Hanna, Tranel, Daniel, Damasio, Antonio R.·1997·Science

Abstract

Deciding advantageously in a complex situation is thought to require overt reasoning on declarative knowledge, namely, on facts pertaining to premises, options for action, and outcomes of actions that embody the pertinent previous experience. An alternative possibility was investigated: that overt reasoning is preceded by a nonconscious biasing step that uses neural systems other than those that support declarative knowledge. Normal participants and patients with prefrontal damage and decision-making defects performed a gambling task in which behavioral, psychophysiological, and self-account measures were obtained in parallel. Normals began to choose advantageously before they realized which strategy worked best, whereas prefrontal patients continued to choose disadvantageously even after they knew the correct strategy. Moreover, normals began to generate anticipatory skin conductance responses (SCRs) whenever they pondered a choice that turned out to be risky, before they knew explicitly that it was a risky choice, whereas patients never developed anticipatory SCRs, although some eventually realized which choices were risky. The results suggest that, in normal individuals, nonconscious biases guide behavior before conscious knowledge does. Without the help of such biases, overt knowledge may be insufficient to ensure advantageous behavior.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/science.275.5304.1293

Cites

6 of 6 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?

  • The somatic marker hypothesis suggests that bodily states outside of conscious awareness could influence behavior.

    “In previous papers, Damasio and his colleagues (e.g., Bechara et al., 1997) described the somatic marker hypothesis, which suggested that bodily states outside of conscious awareness could influence behavior.”

    From More than a feeling: A unified view of stress measurement for population science (2018) · cites this paper as Bechara et al., 1997

  • As participants turned over cards from various decks, changes in skin conductance co-occurred with choices from the riskier decks.

    “They found that as participants turned over cards from the various decks, changes in skin conductance (activity in the eccrine gland, indicating sympathetic activation innervated by acetylcholine) co-occurred with choices from the riskier decks.”

    From More than a feeling: A unified view of stress measurement for population science (2018) · cites this paper as Bechara et al., 1997

  • These bodily changes preceded conscious reporting of which decks were risky by approximately 40 trials.

    “Importantly, these bodily changes preceded conscious reporting of which decks were risky by approximately 40 trials.”

    From More than a feeling: A unified view of stress measurement for population science (2018) · cites this paper as Bechara et al., 1997

  • The VMPFC has long been implicated in reward-related decision-making.

    “The VMPFC has long been implicated in reward-related decision-making (Bechara et al., 1997, 2005; Glascher et al., 2012)”

    From The orbitofrontal cortex: reward, emotion and depression (2020) · cites this paper as Bechara et al., 1997

  • In humans the MPFC may play a role in the integration of emotional and cognitive processes by incorporating emotional biasing signals or markers into decision-making processes.

    “More specifically, it has been proposed that in humans the MPFC may play a role in the integration of emotional and cognitive processes by incorporating emotional biasing signals or markers into decisionmaking processes (43).”

    From A default mode of brain function (2001) · cites this paper as [43]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • H. Damasio and A. R. Damasio, Department of Neurology, Division of Behavioral Neurology and Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA 52242, and The Salk Institute of Biological Studies, La Jolla, CA 92186, USA.
Venue
Science
Published
1997-02-28
Volume
275
Issue
5304
Pages
1293-1295
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
OpenAlex
W2006633893
Cited by
3,547
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 67 · 2025: 73 · 2024: 139 · 2023: 81 · 2022: 111 · 2021: 131 · 2020: 179 · 2019: 134 · 2018: 123 · 2017: 120 · 2016: 157 · 2015: 156 · 2014: 158 · 2013: 182 · 2012: 181
FWCI
29.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (P01 NS19632, P01NS019632)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Cognitive Science and Education Research
Keywords
decision-making, risk perception, implicit learning, declarative knowledge, gambling task, conscious knowledge, psychophysiology
MeSH terms
Aged, Brain Damage, Chronic, Decision Making, Female, Galvanic Skin Response, Gambling, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Unconscious, Psychology, Prefrontal Cortex, Intuition

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