4.3 Article

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

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0014983

关键词

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

资金

  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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据