Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-qxsvm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-18T00:47:33.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing Affective and Deliberative Decision-Making: Adaptation of the Columbia Card Task to Brazilian Portuguese

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2015

Bruno Kluwe-Schiavon ,
Breno Sanvicente-Vieira ,
Thiago W. Viola ,
Eduardo Veiga ,
Vanessa Bortolotto  and
Rodrigo Grassi-Oliveira
Bruno Kluwe-Schiavon
Affiliation:
Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil)
Breno Sanvicente-Vieira
Affiliation:
Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil)
Thiago W. Viola
Affiliation:
Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil)
Eduardo Veiga
Affiliation:
Universidade Federal do Pampa (Brazil)
Vanessa Bortolotto
Affiliation:
Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil)
Rodrigo Grassi-Oliveira*
Affiliation:
Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Prof. Dr. Rodrigo Grassi-Oliveira. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil). E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The ability to predict reward and punishment is essential for decision-making and the ability to learn about an ever-changing environment. Therefore, efforts have been made in understanding the mechanisms underlying decision-making, especially regarding how affective and deliberative processes interact with risk behavior. Objective: To adapt to Brazilian Portuguese the Columbia Card Task (CCT) and investigate affective and deliberative processes involved in decision-making. Methods: This study had two main phases: (1) a transcultural adaptation and (2) a pilot study. Results: The feedback manipulation among the three conditions of CCT had an effect on the risk-taking level (p < .005, ES = .201). In addition, the feedback manipulation among the three conditions of CCT had an effect on the information use at both the individual and group levels. Further, a linear regression suggested that the use of information, indicated by the advantageous level of the scenarios, predict the number of cards chosen R2 = .029, p < .001, accounting for 17% of the variance. Conclusions: The Brazilian CCT performs well and is a versatile method for the assessment of affective and deliberative decision-making under risk according to different feedback manipulation scenarios. This study goes further, comparing electrodermal activity during hot and warm conditions and addressing an advantageous level index analysis to asses deliberative processing.

Keywords

cognitiondecision theoryneuropsychologyvalidationassessment
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 18 , 2015 , E89
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25, 3186–3191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014 Google Scholar
Bechara, A., Damasio, A. R., Damasio, H., & Anderson, S. W. (1994). Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition, 50, 7–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3 Google Scholar
Benedek, M., & Kaernbach, C. (2010). A continuous measure of phasic electrodermal activity. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 190(1), 80–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.04.028 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braithwaite, J., Watson, D., Jones, R., & Rowe, M. (2013). A guide for Analysing Electrodermal Activity (EDA) & Skin Conductance Responses (SCRs) for psychological experiments. Technical report: Selective Attention & Awareness Laboratory (SAAL) Behavioural Brain Sciences Centre. Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Brand, M., Fujiwara, E., Borsutzky, S., Kalbe, E., Kessler, J., & Markowitsch, H. J. (2005). Decision-making deficits of Korsakoff patients in a new gambling task with explicit rules: Associations with executive functions. Neuropsychology, 19, 267–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.19.3.267 Google Scholar
Buelow, M. T. (2015). Predicting performance on the columbia card task: Effects of personality characteristics, mood, and executive functions. Assessment, 22, 178–187 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191114539383 Google Scholar
Dreher, J.-C., & Tremblay, L. (2009). Handbook of reward and decision making. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Figner, B., Mackinlay, R. J., Wilkening, F., & Weber, E. U. (2009). Affective and deliberative processes in risky choice: Age differences in risk taking in the Columbia card task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 35, 709–730. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014983 Google Scholar
Figner, B., & Murphy, R. (2010). Using skin conductance in judgment and decision making research. In Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Kuehberger, A., & Ranyard, R. (Eds.), A handbook of process tracing methods for decision research: A critical review and user's guide. New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Figner, B., & Voelki, N. (2004). Risky decision-making in a computer card game: An information integration experiment. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 35, 4.Google Scholar
Fonseca, R. P., Casarin, F. S., Oliveira, C. R., Gindri, G., Ishigaki, E. C. S. S., Ortiz, K. Z., … Scherer, L. C. (2011). Adaptação de Instrumentos Neuropsicológicos Verbais: Um Fluxograma de Procedimentos para Além da Tradução [Adaptation of Neuropsychological Verbal Instruments: A Fluxogram of Procedures far Beyond Translation]. Interação em Psicologia, 15, 10.Google Scholar
Geisinger, K. F. (1994). Cross-cultural normative assessment: Translation and adaptation issues influencing the normative interpretation of assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 6, 304–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.304 Google Scholar
Gelman, A., & Robert, C. P. (2014). Revised evidence for statistical standards. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111, E1933.Google Scholar
Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., & Beaton, D. (1993). Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46, 1417–1432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-N Google Scholar
Holper, L., & Murphy, O. R. (2013). Hemodynamic and affective correlates assessed during performance on the Columbia Card Task (CCT). Brain Imaging and Behavior, 17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11682-013-9265-9 Google Scholar
Huang, Y., Wood, S., Berger, D., & Hanoch, Y. (2013). Risky choice in younger versus older adults: Affective context matters. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 179–187.Google Scholar
International Test Commission (2005). Guidelines for translating and adapting tests. Retrieved from International Test Commission Webpage https://www.intestcom.org/page/16 Google Scholar
Panno, A., Lauriola, M., & Figner, B. (2013). Emotion regulation and risk taking: Predicting risky choice in deliberative decision making. Cognition & Emotion, 27, 326–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2012.707642 Google Scholar
Penolazzi, B., Gremigni, P., & Russo, P. M. (2012). Impulsivity and Reward Sensitivity differentially influence affective and deliberative risky decision making. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 655–659. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.05.018 Google Scholar
Pripfl, J., Neumann, R., Köhler, U., & Lamm, C. (2013). Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on risky decision making are mediated by 'hot' and 'cold' decisions, personality, and hemisphere. Europen Journal of Neuroscience, 38, 3778–3785. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ejn.12375 Google Scholar
Tom, S. M., Fox, C. R., Trepel, C., & Poldrack, R. A. (2007). The neural basis of loss aversion in decision-making under risk. Science, 315, 515–518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1134239 Google Scholar