4.3 Article

Decision-Making Deficits Among Maltreated Children

期刊

CHILD MALTREATMENT
卷 18, 期 3, 页码 184-194

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1077559512467846

关键词

risk taking; decision making; expected value sensitivity; maltreated children; child welfare system

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [P30 DA023920, DA023920] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [MH078105, P50 MH078105] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [P50MH078105] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE [P30DA023920] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although maltreated children involved with child welfare services are known to exhibit elevated levels of health-risking behaviors, little is known about their decision-making processes leading to such tendencies. Research findings suggest that maltreated children exhibit developmental delays in neurocognitive and emotional regulation systems that could adversely impact their abilities to make decisions under conditions of risk. Whereas prior researchers have examined risky decision making as a global construct, maltreated children's decision making was examined in two contexts in the present study: potential gains and potential losses. Comparing maltreated children (n = 25) and a nonmaltreated community group (n = 112), it was found that the maltreated children showed decision-making impairments for both domains: This impairment was especially prominent in the loss domain. The maltreated children took excessive risks and were insensitive to changes in expected value. Follow-up analyses revealed that these differences were primarily associated with insensitivity to changes in outcome magnitude for the risky option. Finally, response latency analyses indicated that the maltreated children were slower to make choices, reinforcing underlying differences in decision processes between groups. These results have implications for basic and translational science.

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