32
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      How Does Response Inhibition Influence Decision Making When Gambling?

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Recent research suggests that response inhibition training can alter impulsive and compulsive behavior. When stop signals are introduced in a gambling task, people not only become more cautious when executing their choice responses, they also prefer lower bets when gambling. Here, we examined how stopping motor responses influences gambling. Experiment 1 showed that the reduced betting in stop-signal blocks was not caused by changes in information sampling styles or changes in arousal. In Experiments 2a and 2b, people preferred lower bets when they occasionally had to stop their response in a secondary decision-making task but not when they were instructed to respond as accurately as possible. Experiment 3 showed that merely introducing trials on which subjects could not gamble did not influence gambling preferences. Experiment 4 demonstrated that the effect of stopping on gambling generalized to different populations. Further, 2 combined analyses suggested that the effect of stopping on gambling preferences was reliable but small. Finally, Experiment 5 showed that the effect of stopping on gambling generalized to a different task. On the basis of our findings and earlier research, we propose that the presence of stop signals influences gambling by reducing approach behavior and altering the motivational value of the gambling outcome.

          Related collections

          Most cited references59

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Specific impairments of planning.

          T Shallice (1982)
          An information-processing model is outlined that predicts that performance on non-routine tasks can be impaired independently of performance on routine tasks. The model is related to views on frontal lobe functions, particularly those of Luria. Two methods of obtaining more rigorous tests of the model are discussed. One makes use of ideas from artificial intelligence to derive a task heavily loaded on planning abilities. A group of patients with left anterior lesions has a specific deficit on the task. Subsidiary investigations support the inference that this is a planning impairment.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Impulsivity as a determinant and consequence of drug use: a review of underlying processes.

            Impulsive behaviors are closely linked to drug use and abuse, both as contributors to use and as consequences of use. Trait impulsivity is an important determinant of drug use during development, and in adults momentary 'state' increases in impulsive behavior may increase the likelihood of drug use, especially in individuals attempting to abstain. Conversely, acute and chronic effects of drug use may increase impulsive behaviors, which may in turn facilitate further drug use. However, these effects depend on the behavioral measure used to assess impulsivity. This article reviews data from controlled studies investigating different measures of impulsive behaviors, including delay discounting, behavioral inhibition and a newly proposed measure of inattention. Our findings support the hypothesis that drugs of abuse alter performance across independent behavioral measures of impulsivity. The findings lay the groundwork for studying the cognitive and neurobiological substrates of impulsivity, and for future studies on the role of impulsive behavior as both facilitator and a result of drug use.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Bayesian Versus Orthodox Statistics: Which Side Are You On?

              Researchers are often confused about what can be inferred from significance tests. One problem occurs when people apply Bayesian intuitions to significance testing-two approaches that must be firmly separated. This article presents some common situations in which the approaches come to different conclusions; you can see where your intuitions initially lie. The situations include multiple testing, deciding when to stop running participants, and when a theory was thought of relative to finding out results. The interpretation of nonsignificant results has also been persistently problematic in a way that Bayesian inference can clarify. The Bayesian and orthodox approaches are placed in the context of different notions of rationality, and I accuse myself and others as having been irrational in the way we have been using statistics on a key notion of rationality. The reader is shown how to apply Bayesian inference in practice, using free online software, to allow more coherent inferences from data.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                J Exp Psychol Appl
                J Exp Psychol Appl
                Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied
                American Psychological Association
                1076-898X
                1939-2192
                5 January 2015
                March 2015
                : 21
                : 1
                : 15-36
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Psychology, University of Exeter
                [2 ]Laboratoire de Psychologie Médicale et d’Addictologie, Université Libre de Bruxelles
                [3 ]School of Psychology, Cardiff University
                [4 ]School of Psychology, University of Exeter
                [5 ]Laboratoire de Psychologie Médicale et d’Addictologie, Université Libre de Bruxelles
                [6 ]School of Psychology, University of Exeter
                Author notes
                This work was supported by Economic and Social Research Council Grant ES/J00815X/1 to Frederick Verbruggen, Aureliu Lavric, Ian P. L. McLaren, and Christopher D. Chambers; Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Grant BB/K008277/1 to Christopher D. Chambers and Frederick Verbruggen; British Academy/Leverhulme Grant to Frederick Verbruggen, Aureliu Lavric, Ian P. L. McLaren, and Christopher D. Chambers; and a starting grant to Frederick Verbruggen from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013)/ERC Grant Agreement No. 312445. We thank Marie des Neiges Kisoka for the help with the data collection in Experiment 4.
                [*] [* ]Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Frederick Verbruggen, School of Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QG, United Kingdom f.l.j.verbruggen@ 123456exeter.ac.uk
                Article
                xap_21_1_15 2014-57704-001
                10.1037/xap0000039
                4353260
                25559481
                f695e6e4-2389-45f8-8b6c-1606b81f69ff
                © 2015 the Author(s)

                This article has been published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s). Author(s) grant(s) the American Psychological Association the exclusive right to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher.

                History
                : 29 April 2014
                : 12 October 2014
                : 18 October 2014
                Categories
                Articles

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                executive control,response inhibition,gambling,risk taking
                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                executive control, response inhibition, gambling, risk taking

                Comments

                Comment on this article