Advanced search
1 file | 736.74 KB Add to list

How does response inhibition influence decision making when gambling?

Author
Organization
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.
Keywords
STOP-SIGNAL PARADIGM, FRONTAL-LOBE, RISK-TAKING, PSYCHOPHYSICS TOOLBOX, PREFRONTAL CORTEX, SOCIAL DRINKERS, WORKING-MEMORY, MOTOR CONTROL, BEHAVIOR, TASK, executive control, response inhibition, gambling, risk taking

Downloads

  • (...).pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 736.74 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Stevens, Tobias et al. “How Does Response Inhibition Influence Decision Making When Gambling?” JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-APPLIED 21.1 (2015): 15–36. Print.
APA
Stevens, Tobias, Brevers, D., Chambers, C. D., Lavric, A., McLaren, I. P. L., Mertens, M., Noel, X., et al. (2015). How does response inhibition influence decision making when gambling? JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-APPLIED, 21(1), 15–36.
Chicago author-date
Stevens, Tobias, Damien Brevers, Christopher D. Chambers, Aureliu Lavric, Ian P. L. McLaren, Myriam Mertens, Xavier Noel, and Frederick Verbruggen. 2015. “How Does Response Inhibition Influence Decision Making When Gambling?” Journal of Experimental Psychology-applied 21 (1): 15–36.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Stevens, Tobias, Damien Brevers, Christopher D. Chambers, Aureliu Lavric, Ian P. L. McLaren, Myriam Mertens, Xavier Noel, and Frederick Verbruggen. 2015. “How Does Response Inhibition Influence Decision Making When Gambling?” Journal of Experimental Psychology-applied 21 (1): 15–36.
Vancouver
1.
Stevens T, Brevers D, Chambers CD, Lavric A, McLaren IPL, Mertens M, et al. How does response inhibition influence decision making when gambling? JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-APPLIED. Washington: Amer Psychological Assoc; 2015;21(1):15–36.
IEEE
[1]
T. Stevens et al., “How does response inhibition influence decision making when gambling?,” JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-APPLIED, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 15–36, 2015.
@article{8534940,
  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.},
  author       = {Stevens, Tobias and Brevers, Damien and Chambers, Christopher D. and Lavric, Aureliu and McLaren, Ian P. L. and Mertens, Myriam and Noel, Xavier and Verbruggen, Frederick},
  issn         = {1076-898X},
  journal      = {JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-APPLIED},
  keywords     = {STOP-SIGNAL PARADIGM,FRONTAL-LOBE,RISK-TAKING,PSYCHOPHYSICS TOOLBOX,PREFRONTAL CORTEX,SOCIAL DRINKERS,WORKING-MEMORY,MOTOR CONTROL,BEHAVIOR,TASK,executive control,response inhibition,gambling,risk taking},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {1},
  pages        = {15--36},
  publisher    = {Amer Psychological Assoc},
  title        = {How does response inhibition influence decision making when gambling?},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xap0000039},
  volume       = {21},
  year         = {2015},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: