Factors Affecting Learning and Decision-Making in the Iowa Gambling Task
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING AND DECISION-MAKING IN THE IOWA GAMBLING TASK Gordon Fernie Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Sept 2007 Why, it’s just as if we were supplying drinks, with two fountains at our disposal: one would be of honey, standing for pleasure, the other standing for intelligence, a sobering unintoxicating fountain of plain salubrious water. We must get to work and make a really good mixture. Philebus, Plato. For Bob, Margaret, Harry and John ii ABSTRACT Damasio’s somatic marker hypothesis (SMH; Damasio, 1994, 1996) integrates emotion with rational decision-making using evidence drawn from neurology, neuroscience and performance on a now widely cited decision-making test developed to model real-life in a laboratory setting (the Iowa Gambling Task; Bechara, Damasio, Damasio and Anderson, 1994). The SMH posits a critical input from an embodied emotional system (somatic markers) in making decisions in choice situations. But Damasio’s consideration of how the undamaged brain interacts with the body has some interesting and somewhat controversial implications in the context of modern psychological research on choice behaviour. In interpreting behaviour on the IGT in accordance with the SMH three central assumptions have been made: a) that somatic markers indicate the goodness or badness of alternatives and without them decision- making cannot become optimal, b) this somatic biasing or guidance can occur unconsciously or in the absence of explicit knowledge, and c) that the system operates so as to maximize or achieve the best outcome in the long-term. The Experiments described in this thesis have explored the validity of the second and third assumptions and found that they are not accurately reflected in behaviour on the IGT. The importance of information about the IGT in the instructions participants receive suggested that explicit knowledge about the task is a more critical factor than any somatic input. No evidence of a somatic influence prior to the emergence of explicit knowledge sufficient to guide behaviour was found. Instead there were indications that knowledge precedes somatic activity on the IGT. Novel manipulations of the reinforcement contingencies in individual decks also revealed that immediate outcomes of choices are an important determinant of subsequent behaviour. Selection does not solely depend on long-term outcomes. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thanks members of the Department of Psychology at Keele University for encouraging me to pursue a research career. Keele University has my gratitude for funding the first year of this thesis work. I am also grateful to Dr Richard J. Tunney for all his help and advice in the course of supervising this project. It would not have started without his encouragement for me to apply. I thank him too for allowing me to hang on to his coat tails long enough to make it into the University of Nottingham. The thesis would not have been finished without the support and kind words of my family and friends. I could not have done it without them. Jen, you built me up when I was down. You provided a sounding board without becoming bored, and provided constant encouragement even through the dark days. iv PUBLISHED PAPERS Experiments 1, 2 and 3 are published in Fernie, G. and Tunney, R.J. (2006). The effect of reinforcer type and task instructions on learning in the iowa gambling task. Brain And Cognition, 60(1), 94-102. Experiments 4 and 5 are published in Fernie, G. and Tunney, R. J. (2008). Decision- making in the Iowa Gambling Task. In F. Columbus (Ed.). The Psychology of Decision-Making. New York: Nova. v LIST OF CONTENTS Abstract iii Acknowledgements iv List of Figures xii List of Tables xvi CHAPTER ONE DECISION-MAKING, REASON AND EMOTION 1 1.1 A PHILOSOPHICAL BEGINNING 1 1.2 THE SOMATIC MARKER HYPOTHESIS 2 1.3 THE ASSUMPTION OF THE CAUSALITY OF SOMATIC MARKERS 6 1.3.1 Damasio’s theory of emotion and the somatic marker hypothesis 6 1.3.2 The case for the SMH from anatomy and SCR activity 11 1.3.3 Other theoretical and philosophical explanations 21 1.3.4 Reversal learning 25 1.3.5 Summary 28 1.4 THE ASSUMPTION THAT DECISION MAKING PROCEEDS IN THE ABSENCE OF KNOWLEDGE 29 1.4.1 The involvement of working memory 31 1.4.2 Other contributory factors to IGT performance 37 1.4.3 Summary 40 1.5 THE ASSUMPTION OF A MAXIMIZING SYSTEM 40 1.5.1 Rational choice theory 43 1.5.2 Animal choice experiments 45 1.5.3 Summary 51 1.6 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE EXPERIMENTS 51 vi CHAPTER TWO THE EFFECT OF TASK INSTRUCTIONS AND REINFORCER TYPE ON LEARNING 54 2.1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 54 2.2 EXPERIMENT 1 A FAILURE TO REPLICATE NORMAL PERFORMANCE ON THE IOWA GAMBLING TASK - THE BEHAVIOUR OF A NORMAL SAMPLE IS NOT OPTIMAL. 56 2.2.1 Introduction 56 2.2.2 Method 57 2.2.3 Results 63 2.2.4 Discussion 66 2.3 EXPERIMENT 2 ‘STANDARD’ BEHAVIOUR REPLICATED USING ‘HINT’ INSTRUCTIONS 67 2.3.1 Introduction 67 2.3.2 Method 68 2.3.3 Results 69 2.3.4 Discussion 71 2.4 EXPERIMENT 3 THE EFFECT OF INSTRUCTION TYPE USING REAL MONEY REINFORCERS 76 2.4.1 Introduction 76 2.4.2 Method 77 2.4.3 Results 79 2.4.4 Discussion 83 2.5 CROSS EXPERIMENT COMPARISONS INSTRUCTIONS AFFECT PERFORMANCE ON THE IGT 85 2.5.1 Session 1 86 vii 2.5.2 Learning rates 89 2.5.3 Session 2 90 2.5.4 Learning rates in Session 2 94 2.6 GENERAL DISCUSSION 94 CHAPTER THREE MANIPULATIONS OF LOSS FREQUENCY AFFECT LEARNING ON THE IGT 101 3.1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 101 3.2 EXPERIMENT 4 ADVANTAGEOUS CARD SELECTION DIFFERS BETWEEN DECK COMPARISONS WHEN CHOICE IS BETWEEN TWO IOWA GAMBLING TASK DECKS 112 3.2.1 Introduction 112 3.2.2 Method 113 3.2.3 Results 115 3.2.4 Discussion 119 3.3 EXPERIMENT 5 MANIPULATION OF FREQUENCY (AND MAGNITUDE) OF LOSS AFFECTS LEARNING ON THE IGT 122 3.3.1 Introduction 122 3.3.2 Method 123 3.3.3 Results 125 3.3.4 Discussion 138 3.4 GENERAL DISCUSSION 140 viii CHAPTER FOUR THE NATURE OF THE REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE INFLUENCES LEARNING 145 4.1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 145 4.2 EXPERIMENT 6 NO LEARNING ON A PROBABILISTIC VERSION OF THE IGT 151 4.2.1 Introduction 151 4.2.2 Method 152 4.2.3 Results 154 4.2.4 Discussion 158 4.3 EXPERIMENT 7 THE VARIANT IGT – ORDER OF LOSSES AFFECTS LEARNING 166 4.3.1 Introduction 166 4.3.2 Method 167 4.3.3 Results 169 4.3.4 Discussion 174 4.4 EXPERIMENT 8 THE VARIANT IGT – PROBABILISTIC SCHEDULES AFFECT LEARNING 177 4.4.1 Introduction 177 4.4.2 Method 178 4.4.3 Results 179 4.4.4 Discussion 182 4.5 GENERAL DISCUSSION 188 ix CHAPTER FIVE LEARNING ON THE IGT FOLLOWS EMERGENCE OF KNOWLEDGE BUT NOT DIFFERENTIAL SOMATIC ACTIVITY 5.1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 194 5.1.1 When does a differential aSCR to deck types emerge? 195 5.1.2. When does knowledge sufficient to guide IGT selection behaviour emerge? 199 5.1.3 Summary 207 5.2 EXPERIMENT 9 DIFFERENTIAL SKIN CONDUCTANCE RESPONSES BETWEEN DECK TYPES EMERGE AFTER PARTICIPANTS DISPLAY KNOWLEDGE ON THE IOWA GAMBLING TASK. 208 5.2.1 Introduction 208 5.2.2 Method 209 5.2.3 Results 217 5.2.4 Discussion 5.3 GENERAL DISCUSSION 249 CHAPTER SIX GENERAL DISCUSSION 256 6.1 SUMMARY OF EMPIRICAL RESULTS 256 6.2 IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE USE OF THE IGT 261 6.2.1 The IGT as a test of the SMH 261 6.2.2 The IGT as a test of decision-making 265 6.2.3 Implications for the SMH 269 x 6.3 APPLICATION OF THE IGT TO OTHER CHOICE ENVIRONMENTS 271 6.4 FUTURE EXPERIMENTS 273 6.5 CONCLUSION 276 APPENDIX A FIXED SCHEDULE OF LOSSES USED IN EXPERIMENTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 6 279 APPENDIX B FIXED SCHEDULE OF LOSSES USED IN THE MANIPULATED DECKS OF EXPERIMENT 5 281 APPENDIX C FIXED SCHEDULE OF WINS ON THE VARIANT IGT USED IN EXPERIMENT 7 284 APPENDIX D QUESTIONS USED IN THE SPECIFIC QUESTION CONDITION OF EXPERIMENT 9 287 REFERENCES 289 xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: The Harvard Game environment. 48 Figure 2.1: Screen shot from the computerized gambling task 59 Figure 2.2: Mean net score across 20-trial blocks for each session in Experiment 1 64 Figure 2.3: Mean net score across 20-trial blocks for each session in Experiment 2 70 Figure 2.4: Mean number of cards selected from each deck in a) Experiment 1 and b) Experiment 2 74 Figure 2.5 Mean net score across 20-trial blocks for each session in Experiment 3 80 Figure 2.6: Mean number of cards selected from each deck in condition A (No Hint instructions) and condition B (Hint instructions) 84 Figure 2.7 Mean number of cards selected from each deck by block for each experimental condition 92 Figure 2.8a Mean number of card selections in each block in Experiments 1 and 2 97 Figure 2.8b Mean number of card selections in each block in Experiment 3 98 Figure 3.1 Mean number of advantageous selections across twenty ten-trial blocks in each experimental group 117 Figure 3.2: Mean net score across ten twenty-trial blocks in each experimental condition 127 Figure 3.3: Mean number of cards selected from each deck across all 200 trials in each condition.