4.3 Article

Affective and Deliberative Processes in Risky Choice: Age Differences in Risk Taking in the Columbia Card Task

Publisher

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0014983

Keywords

risk taking; adolescence; affective and deliberative decision making; dual system; cognitive control

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [PA001-115327, PBZH1-110268]
  2. U.S. National Science Foundation [SES-0720932, SES-0452932]
  3. Jacobs Center for Productive Youth Development
  4. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie
  5. Divn Of Social and Economic Sciences [922743] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The authors investigated risk taking and underlying information use in 13- to 16- and 17- to 19-year-old adolescents and in adults in 4 experiments, using a novel dynamic risk-taking task, the Columbia Card Task (CCT). The authors investigated risk taking under differential involvement of affective versus deliberative processes with 2 versions of the CCT. constituting the most direct test of a dual-system explanation of adolescent risk taking in the literature so far. The hot CCT was designed to trigger more affective decision making, whereas the cold CCT was designed to trigger more deliberative decision making. Differential involvement of affective versus deliberative processes in the 2 CCT versions was established by self-reports and assessment of electrodermal activity. Increased adolescent risk taking, coupled with simplified information use, was found in the hot but not the cold condition. Need-for-arousal predicted risk taking only in the hot condition, whereas executive functions predicted information use in the cold condition. Results are consistent with recent dual-system explanations of risk taking its the result of competition between affective processes and deliberative cognitive-control processes, with adolescents' affective system tending to override the deliberative system in states of heightened emotional arousal.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available