IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v11y2016i2p185-196_5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the generality of the effect of experiencing prior gains and losses on the Iowa Gambling Task: A study on young and old adults

Author

Listed:
  • Rosi, Alessia
  • Cavallini, Elena
  • Gamboz, Nadia
  • Russo, Riccardo

Abstract

Prospect Theory predicts that people tend to be more risk seeking if their reference point is perceived as a loss and more risk averse when the reference point is perceived as a gain. In line with this prediction, Franken, Georgieva, Muris and Dijksterhuis (2006) showed that young adults who had a prior experience of monetary gains make more safe choices on subsequent decisions than subjects who had an early experience of losses. There are no experimental studies on how experiencing prior gains and losses differently influences young and older adults on a subsequent decision-making task (the Iowa Gambling Task). Hence, in the current paper, adapting the methodology employed by Franken et al.’s (2006), we intended to test the generality of their effect across the life span. Overall, we found that subjects who experienced prior monetary gains or prior monetary losses did not display significant differences in safe/risky choices on subsequent performance in the Iowa Gambling task. Furthermore, the impact of prior gains and losses on risky/safe card selection did not significantly differ between young and older adults. These results showed that the effect found in the Franken et al.’s study (2006) is limited in its generality.

Suggested Citation

  • Rosi, Alessia & Cavallini, Elena & Gamboz, Nadia & Russo, Riccardo, 2016. "On the generality of the effect of experiencing prior gains and losses on the Iowa Gambling Task: A study on young and old adults," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 185-196, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:2:p:185-196_5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500007294/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:2:p:185-196_5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.