风险取向类型与爱荷华赌博任务成绩的影响

神经科学领域的研究者们设计了测量情感决策的经典爱荷华赌博任务并提出了体细胞标记假说来解释其研究结果，但迄今为止这一假说还没有得到一致认可。许多研究提出了可能影响爱荷华赌博任务成绩的其他因素。本研究试图在前人研究的基础上采用实验法探讨风险取向类型这一人格因素是否影响正常个体的爱荷华赌博任务成绩。实验结果显示，不同风险取向类型的个体在爱荷华赌博任务中的成绩和表现截然不同。典型风险趋向型个体在爱荷华赌博任务中的表现类似于某些神经系统患者，倾向于更多地选择不利纸牌，其任务成绩显著差于典型风险回避型个体。这一研究结果表明：风险取向类型是影响正常个体爱荷华赌博任务成绩的重要因素之一。

Types of Risk-taking Have a Significant Effect on the Performance of the Iowa Gambling Task

This research intends to find out if the types of risk-taking have an effect on the performance of the Iowa Gambling Task. The Iowa Gambling Task (Bechara et al., 1994) is an effective neuropsychological tool for the assessment of affective decision-making in a laboratory environment. It has been employed in a wide range of circumstances since it was designed. Researchers got many different interesting results from the task. Neuropsychologists proposed a somatic marker hypothesis for these results. But the hypothesis caused heated discussion. Some researchers found that the Iowa Gambling Task exclusively measured decision-making under ambiguity. And by several experiments, they showed how the somatic makers in the human body affect decision-making. Other researchers found it could also be that the IGT measured different types of decision-making, depending on whether or not the subjects could figure out the rules when performing the task. There were other well-specified and parsimonious explanations that can equally well account for the IGT data, such as working memory, controlling and shifting, and so on. Now, more and more studies pay attention to how individual differences and personality play their roles when the subjects are working. So do the researchers working on the Iowa Gambling Task. Some people discuss impulsivity and the Iowa Gambling Task, while other people discuss negativity affectivity and the Iowa Gambling Task. Unfortunately, no one thinks about the relationship between the types of risk taking and the Iowa Gambling Task. Do the types of risk taking affect when the subjects working on the Iowa Gambling Task? If they do, how exactly? This study tried to find the answers. There were two experiments in our research. The first experiment was the Balloon Analogue Risk-taking Task (Lejuez, 2002). The purpose was to differentiate between the two types of risk taking. One hundred and four participants who were chosen randomly from the Southwest University finished this task. Finally, both the risk-seeking and risk-averse groups got twenty subjects. The second experiment was the Iowa Gambling Task (Bechara,1994). The forty subjects in the two type groups did the experiment. And all data was analyzed by SPSS 13.0 for Windows. The results showed that there were significant differences between the two types of risk-taking, risk-averse and risk-seeking. In the first few choices, the subjects who were risk-averse chose disadvantageous decks, but when they met two or three big losses, they were forced to choose more and more advantageous decks. To the subjects who were risk-seeking, they kept choosing more and more disadvantageous decks even though they knew their choices were dangerous. Most people in the risk-seeking group behaved like the neuropsychological patients. Group differences in scores reached statistically significant level. The results indicated that the somatic marker hypothesis was not suitable to all healthy individuals and a that the types of risk taking also had an important influence on the Iowa Gambling Task.