4.6 Article

Altered Decision-Making under Risk in Obesity

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 11, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155600

关键词

-

资金

  1. Andalusian Council of Innovation, Science and Industry [HUM-6635]
  2. Instituto de Salud Carlos III [FIS PI14/00290]
  3. FEDER funds
  4. Ian Potter Foundation
  5. Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports, FPU Program [FP13/00669]
  6. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [PSI2013-45055]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The negative consequences of energy dense foods are well known, yet people increasingly make unhealthy food choices leading to obesity (i.e., risky decisions). The aims of this study were: [1] to compare performance in decision-making tasks under risk and under ambiguity between individuals with obesity, overweight and normal weight; [2] to examine the associations between body mass index (BMI) and decision-making, and the degree to which these associations are modulated by reward sensitivity. Methods Seventy-nine adults were recruited and classified in three groups according to their BMI: obesity, overweight and normal-weight. Groups were similar in terms of age, education and socio-economic status, and were screened for comorbid medical and mental health conditions. Decision-making under risk was measured via the Wheel of Fortune Task (WoFT) and decision-making under ambiguity via the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT). Reward sensitivity was indicated by the Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire (SPSRQ). Results Individuals with obesity made riskier choices in the WoFT, specifically in choices with an expected value close to zero and in the propensity to risk index. No differences were found in IGT performance or SPSRQ scores. BMI was associated with risk-taking (WoFT performance), independently of reward sensitivity. Conclusions Obesity is linked to a propensity to make risky decisions in experimental conditions analogous to everyday food choices.

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

4.6
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