Impulsivity Moderates Skin Conductance Activity During Decision Making in a Modified Version of the Balloon Analog Risk Task

Philippa Hüpen, Ute Habel, Frank Schneider, Joseph W Kable, Lisa Wagels, Philippa Hüpen, Ute Habel, Frank Schneider, Joseph W Kable, Lisa Wagels

Abstract

Individual differences in traits such as impulsivity and processing of risk and reward have been linked to decision making and may underlie divergent decision making strategies. It is, however, unclear whether and how far individual differences in these characteristics jointly influence decision making. Here, we aimed to investigate the roles of skin conductance responses, a psychophysiological marker of risk processing and impulsivity, as assessed by the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale 11 on decision making. Forty-six healthy participants performed a modified version of the Balloon Analog Risk Task (BART), where reward and explosion risk are manipulated separately. Participants are informed about whether they play a high versus low reward and high versus low explosion risk condition. The exact risk and reward contingencies are, however, unknown to participants. Participants were less risk-taking under high, compared to low explosion risk and under high reward, compared to low reward on the modified BART, which served as a validation of the paradigm. Risk-taking was negatively related to skin conductance responses under high explosion risk. This relationship was primarily driven by individuals with relatively high levels of impulsivity. However, impulsivity alone was not found to be related to decision making on the modified BART. These results extend evidence that skin conductance responses may guide decision making in situations, where participants are informed about risk level (high vs. low), which might be differentially moderated by different levels of impulsivity.

Keywords: decision making; impulsivity; reward; risk; skin conductance activity.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
(A) Schematic of the modified BART. Participants were presented with a computerized balloon which is dynamically growing large. The increase in balloon size confers to greater risk of explosion, but also to greater potential reward. Participants determine the point of time at which the balloon should stop inflating and are informed about the outcome (explosion or reward) after a temporal delay. A potential explosion of the balloon is saved in the computer program, but is not visually presented to participants online. (B) Importantly, the modified BART employs a 2 × 2 design with two levels of risk (high vs. low) and two levels of reward (high vs. low). At the beginning of each trial, these conditions are presented to participants such that they know which condition they play.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
MANOVA results. (A–C) show response time, percentage of balloons which did not explode and earnings as a function of risk level. (D–F) show response time, percentage of balloons which did not explode and earnings as a function of reward level. Error bars represent standard errors of the means. ∗p < 0.05. ∗∗∗p < 0.001.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Expected value of cash outs. The curve represents the expected value of cash outs for each time point of the four conditions (A–D) of the modified BART. Optimal response time (time point at which the expected value of cash outs is greatest) and time point at which variance of outcomes is greatest are indicated for each condition. Optimal response time for the low risk/low reward condition (A) and for the low risk/high reward condition (B) is 3,000 ms. Optimal response time for the high risk/low reward condition (C) and for the high risk/high reward condition (D) is 2,015 ms. For each participant, mean earnings (in euro cents) per condition is mapped as a function of response time.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Simple slopes for the interaction of skin conductance response (SCR) and Barratt Impulsiveness Scale 11 (BIS-11) scores at mean ± 1 SD for high and low risk. Circles represent observed data on participants’ response times (RTs) as a function of SCR.

References

    1. Bates D., Mächler M., Bolker B., Walker S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    1. Bayard S., Raffard S., Gely-Nargeot M.-C. (2011). Do facets of self-reported impulsivity predict decision-making under ambiguity and risk? Evidence from a community sample. Psychiatry Res. 190 322–326. 10.1016/j.psychres.2011.06.013
    1. Bechara A. (2003). Risky business: emotion, decision-making, and addiction. J. Gambl. Stud. 19 23–51. 10.1023/A:1021223113233
    1. Bechara A., Damasio A. R. (2005). The somatic marker hypothesis: a neural theory of economic decision. Games Econ. Behav. 52 336–372. 10.1016/j.geb.2004.06.010
    1. Bechara A., Damasio H., Tranel D., Damasio A. R. (1997). Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science 275 1293–1295. 10.1126/science.275.5304.1293
    1. Benedek M., Kaernbach C. (2010). A continuous measure of phasic electrodermal activity. J. Neurosci. Methods 190 80–91. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.04.028
    1. Bland A. R., Schaefer A. (2012). Different varieties of uncertainty in human decision-making. Front. Neurosci. 6:85 10.3389/fnins.2012.00085
    1. Burnett Heyes S., Adam R. J., Urner M., van der Leer L., Bahrami B., Bays P. M., et al. (2012). Impulsivity and rapid decision-making for reward. Front. Psychol. 3:153. 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00153
    1. Caswell A. J., Bond R., Duka T., Morgan M. J. (2015). Further evidence of the heterogeneous nature of impulsivity. Pers. Individ. Dif. 76 68–74. 10.1016/J.PAID.2014.11.059
    1. Christodoulou T., Lewis M., Ploubidis G. B., Frangou S. (2006). The relationship of impulsivity to response inhibition and decision-making in remitted patients with bipolar disorder. Eur. Psychiatry 21 270–273. 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2006.04.006
    1. Christopoulos G. I., Tobler P. N., Bossaerts P., Dolan R. J., Schultz W. (2009). Neural correlates of value. J. Neurosci. 29 12574–12583. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2614-09.2009
    1. Cohen J. (1977). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Rev. Edn Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
    1. Crone E. A., Somsen R. J. M., Van Beek B., Van Der Molena M. W. (2004). Heart rate and skin conductance analysis of antecendents and consequences of decision making. Psychophysiology 41 531–540. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2004.00197.x
    1. Crosetto P., Filippin A. (2013). The “bomb” risk elicitation task. J. Risk Uncertain. 47 31–65. 10.1007/s11166-013-9170-z
    1. Dekkers T. J., Popma A., Agelink van Rentergem J. A., Bexkens A., Huizenga H. M. (2016). Risky decision making in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a meta-regression analysis. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 45 1–16. 10.1016/j.cpr.2016.03.001
    1. Dickman S. J. (1990). Functional and dysfunctional impulsivity: Personality and cognitive correlates. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58 95–102. 10.1037/0022-3514.58.1.95
    1. Dinu-Biringer R., Nees F., Falquez R., Berger M., Barnow S. (2016). Different roads to the same destination – The impact of impulsivity on decision-making processes under risk within a rewarding context in a healthy male sample. Psychiatry Res. Neuroimag. 248 12–22. 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2016.01.012
    1. Evenden J. L. (1999). Varieties of impulsivity. Psychopharmacology 146 348–361. 10.1007/PL00005481
    1. Filippin A., Crosetto P. (2016). Click‘n’roll: no evidence of illusion of control. Economist 164 281–295. 10.1007/s10645-016-9282-3
    1. Franken I. H. A., van Strien J. W., Nijs I., Muris P. (2008). Impulsivity is associated with behavioral decision-making deficits. Psychiatry Res. 158 155–163. 10.1016/j.psychres.2007.06.002
    1. Guillaume S., Jollant F., Jaussent I., Lawrence N., Malafosse A., Courtet P. (2009). Somatic markers and explicit knowledge are both involved in decision-making. Neuropsychologia 47 2120–2124. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.04.003
    1. Harville D. A. (1977). Maximum likelihood approaches to variance component estimation and to related problems. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 72 320–338. 10.1080/01621459.1977.10480998
    1. Holper L., Wolf M., Tobler P. N. (2014). Comparison of functional near-infrared spectroscopy and electrodermal activity in assessing objective versus subjective risk during risky financial decisions. Neuroimage 84 833–842. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.09.047
    1. Kable J. W., Glimcher P. W. (2007). The neural correlates of subjective value during intertemporal choice. Nat. Neurosci. 10 1625–1633. 10.1038/nn2007
    1. Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263 10.2307/1914185
    1. Kóbor A., Takács Á, Janacsek K., Németh D., Honbolygó F., Csépe V., et al. (2015). Different strategies underlying uncertain decision making: higher executive performance is associated with enhanced feedback-related negativity. Psychophysiology 52 367–377. 10.1111/psyp.12331
    1. Lauriola M., Panno A., Levin I. P., Lejuez C. W. (2014). Individual differences in risky decision making: a meta-analysis of sensation seeking and impulsivity with the balloon analogue risk task. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 27 20–36. 10.1002/bdm.1784
    1. Lejuez C. W., Read J. P., Kahler C. W., Richards J. B., Ramsey S. E., Stuart G. L., et al. (2002). Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: the balloon analogue risk task (BART). J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 8 75–84. 10.1037/1076-898X.8.2.75
    1. Long J. A. (2018). Analysis and Presentation of Social Scientific Data. Available at: (accessed November 29 2018).
    1. Martin L. E., Potts G. F. (2009). Impulsivity in decision-making: an event-related potential investigation. Pers. Individ. Dif. 46 303–308. 10.1016/j.paid.2008.10.019
    1. Mather M., Lighthall N. R. (2012). Risk and reward are processed differently in decisions made under stress. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 21 36–41. 10.1177/0963721411429452
    1. Patton J. H., Stanford M. S., Barratt E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the barratt impulsiveness scale. J. Clin. Psychol. 51 768–774. 10.1002/1097-4679(199511)51:6<768::AID-JCLP2270510607>;2-1
    1. Preuschoff K., Bossaerts P., Quartz S. R. (2006). Neural differentiation of expected reward and risk in human subcortical structures. Neuron 51 381–390. 10.1016/j.neuron.2006.06.024
    1. Preuss U. W., Rujescu D., Giegling I., Watzke S., Koller G., Zetzsche T., et al. (2008). Psychometrische evaluation der deutschsprachigen version der barratt-impulsiveness-skala. Nervenarzt 79 305–319. 10.1007/s00115-007-2360-7
    1. Quartz S. R. (2009). Reason, emotion and decision-making: risk and reward computation with feeling. Trends Cogn. Sci. 13 209–215. 10.1016/j.tics.2009.02.003
    1. R Core Team (2014). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
    1. Reynolds B., Ortengren A., Richards J. B., de Wit H. (2006). Dimensions of impulsive behavior: personality and behavioral measures. Pers. Individ. Dif. 40 305–315. 10.1016/j.paid.2005.03.024
    1. Schonberg T., Fox C. R., Poldrack R. A. (2011). Mind the gap: bridging economic and naturalistic risk-taking with cognitive neuroscience. Trends Cogn. Sci. 15 11–19. 10.1016/j.tics.2010.10.002
    1. Sebastian A., Jacob G., Lieb K., Tüscher O. (2013). Impulsivity in borderline personality disorder: a matter of disturbed impulse control or a facet of emotional dysregulation? Curr. Psychiatry Rep. 15:339 10.1007/s11920-012-0339-y
    1. Sebastian A., Jung P., Krause-Utz A., Lieb K., Schmahl C., Tüscher O. (2014). Frontal dysfunctions of impulse control - a systematic review in borderline personality disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8:698. 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00698
    1. Stahl C., Voss A., Schmitz F., Nuszbaum M., Tüscher O., Lieb K., et al. (2014). Behavioral components of impulsivity. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 143 850–886. 10.1037/a0033981
    1. Stanford M. S., Mathias C. W., Dougherty D. M., Lake S. L., Anderson N. E., Patton J. H. (2009). Fifty years of the barratt impulsiveness scale: an update and review. Pers. Individ. Dif. 47 385–395. 10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.008
    1. Sweitzer M. M., Allen P. A., Kaut K. P. (2008). Relation of individual differences in impulsivity to nonclinical emotional decision making. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 14 878–882. 10.1017/S1355617708080934

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit