跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.192.79.149) 您好!臺灣時間:2023/06/03 00:41
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:顏世旭
研究生(外文):Shi-Shih Yen
論文名稱:訊息揭露對愛荷華賭局表現之影響-再驗Maia & McClelland(2004)之研究
論文名稱(外文):The influence of immediate gamble-information feedback in the Iowa gambling task - Reevaluating the Maia & McClelland (2004) study
指導教授:邱耀初邱耀初引用關係林錦宏林錦宏引用關係
指導教授(外文):Yao-Chu ChiuChing-Hung Lin
口試委員:黃榮村陳學志林文瑛
口試委員(外文):Jong-Tsun HuangHsueh-Chih ChenWen-Ying Lin
口試日期:2013-07-04
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:東吳大學
系所名稱:心理學系
學門:社會及行為科學學門
學類:心理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2013
畢業學年度:101
語文別:中文
論文頁數:75
中文關鍵詞:愛荷華賭局作業期望值輸贏頻率賭局知識與行為訊息揭露
外文關鍵詞:Iowa Gambling TaskExpected valueGain-loss frequencyChoice behavior & Knowledge of gamble structureImmediately gamble-information feedback
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:526
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:37
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
研究目的: Bechara等人(1997)和Maia與McClelland (2004)的研究中同樣指出正常受試者在進行愛荷華賭局作業(Iowa gambling task, IGT)時,皆可理解賭局架構的知識並選擇對他有利的牌,也就是符合期望值的觀點;然而在另一方面,近年來有其他研究者(Chiu et al., 2008;Fernie & Tunney, 2006;Fum et al., 2008;Lin et al., 2007; Steingroever et al., 2013; Wilder et al., 1998) 指出在IGT中有輸贏頻率此混淆變項的存在,正常受試者會受到輸贏次數多寡的影響,而對期望值不敏感—此為輸贏頻率的觀點。顯然在IGT的選擇行為上,已有兩種觀點出現,但極少研究深入探討此二種知識(期望值vs. 輸贏頻率)與選擇行為的關係,所以本研究設計三個實驗來重新驗證Maia團隊認為賭局知識與行為應皆受期望值影響的現象。研究方法: 本研究實驗一主要是以IGT及逆轉版IGT重新驗證Maia團隊問卷中的何種賭局知識(期望值vs. 輸贏頻率)與選擇行為一致性的問題。實驗二和三以訊息揭露的方法(包括:每一疊牌立即輸贏與累積輸贏訊息的回饋)替代Maia團隊問卷之作法,延續實驗一檢驗賭局知識與偏好行為之關聯性。實驗結果: 實驗一結果發現受試者的選擇行為較符合輸贏頻率知識,實驗二和三結果發現在IGT中,訊息完整揭露(提供受試者期望值的知識)時,受試者仍然對期望值不敏感,受輸贏頻率影響較大。綜觀三個實驗而言,受試者的賭局知識與選擇行為產生一致關聯時,主要以輸贏頻率為依據,此與Maia團隊及Bechara團隊基於期望值之觀點矛盾。
Background: Bechara et al., (1997) and Maia & McClelland (2004) possessed controversial prospects on the knowledge penetration (late vs. early) of gamble structure (conscious to gamble structure). Nevertheless, both research teams congruently demonstrated that most normal subjects approached the advantageous cards and figured out the task structure eventually during playing the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) -This is so called the viewpoint of expected value (EV). However, in recent years, a few research groups (Chiu et al., 2008; Fernie & Tunney, 2006; Fum et al., 2008;Lin et al., 2007; Steingroever et al., 2013; Wilder et al., 1998) found a confounding variable, namely the gain-loss frequency (GLF) rather than EV mostly dominated the choice behavior in the IGT. Notably, this argument between GLF vs. EV only involved choice-behavior level. Nevertheless, few researches verifiy the consistency between choice behavior and knowledge of gamble structure based on the two viewpoints (GLF vs. EV). Therefore, this study provided three experiments to evaluate the consistency between participants’ choice behavior and their knowledge for gamble structure. Method: Experiment 1 aims to further evaluate the critical experiment conducted by Maia & McClelland (2004). Namely, we are curious about what kind of gamble knowledge (GLF vs. EV) mainly guide the subjects' choice behavior in IGT & reverse version IGT (rIGT). Experiment 2 & 3 extended Experiment 1 and the questionnaire used by Maia & McClelland (2004) for evaluating subjects’ knowledge on gamble structure was replaced with the immediate gamble-information feedback (Including the information of immediate gain/loss and cumulative gain/loss in each deck). This manipulation is to eliminate the shortage by using the questionnaire (Maia & McClelland, 2004). Result: The result of Experiment 1 demonstrated that GLF rather than EV mostly guided the subjects’ choice behavior. Moreover, in Experiment 2 & 3, the immediate gamble-information was further provided to subjects, they were still unable to penetrate the EV of each deck and approach the positive-outcome choice. The present findings are inconsistent with Maia & McClelland (2004) and Bechara et al. (1997) observation, but largely consistent with the viewpoint of GLF.
緒論 1
研究背景與動機 1
文獻探討 3
第一節 愛荷華賭局作業(Iowa Gambling Task, 以下簡稱IGT) 3
一、IGT的起源 3
二、IGT的內容 3
三、正常人與VMPFC病人在IGT上的表現 4
四、逆轉版IGT的起源(以下簡稱rIGT) 5
五、逆轉版IGT的內容 6
六、正常人與VMPFC病人在rIGT上的表現 7
第二節 IGT中的爭議:何時產生期望值知識 10
一、Bechara等人(1997)的觀點: 期望值知識形成於後段 10
二、Maia與McClelland (2004)的觀點: 期望值知識於前段即已形成 13
1. Bechara團隊使用的問卷問題不精確 13
2. 好壞牌的判定應由受試者決定 15
3. Maia團隊如何評估受試者賭局知識 16
4. Maia團隊的研究結果:期望值知識於賭局前段便產生 17
三、兩方研究者的論證 18
四、小結 …………………………………………………………………………..19
第三節Maia & McClelland (2004)研究後續的議題 21
一、不支持Maia與McClelland (2004)結果的研究 21
1. SCRs與IGT中的表現有關 21
2.問卷施測會影響IGT中的表現 21
3.SCR與賭局知識和IGT的表現皆有關 22
二、探討Maia與McClelland (2004)的研究與輸贏頻率的關係 22
三、小結… 24
第四節 IGT中的混淆變項: 輸贏頻率 25
一、奇異B牌的現象 25
二、期望值VS. 輸贏頻率 25
三、如何澄清期望值與輸贏頻率的影響 27
四、Maia與McClelland (2004)的研究尚待釐清輸贏頻率現象 28
第五節 賭局知識中輸贏頻率對選擇行為的影響 30
實驗一:檢驗Maia與McClelland (2004)研究─以IGT/rIGT為例 34
第一節 研究目的與假設 34
一、研究目的 34
二、研究假設 34
第二節 研究方法 35
一、研究對象 35
二、研究工具 35
三、實驗程序 36
四、分析方法說明 37
第三節 實驗結果 38
一、 Maia問卷版IGT問卷與選擇行為資料 38
二、 Maia問卷版rIGT問卷與選擇行為資料 39
第四節 結果與討論 41
實驗二:訊息揭露與否對IGT表現的影響 43
第一節 研究目的與假設 43
一、研究目的 43
二、研究假設 43
第二節 研究方法 44
一、研究對象 44
二、研究工具 44
三、實驗程序 46
第三節 實驗結果 47
第四節 結果與討論 49
一、組間比較(訊息揭露vs.訊息未揭露) 49
二、組內比較(A、B、C、D牌) 49
實驗三:訊息揭露與否對rIGT表現的影響 51
第一節 研究目的與假設 51
一、研究目的 51
二、研究假設 51
第二節 研究方法 52
一、研究對象 52
二、研究工具 52
三、實驗程序 52
第三節 實驗結果 53
第四節 結果與討論 55
一、組間比較(訊息揭露vs.未揭露) 55
二、組內比較(rA、rB、rC、rD牌) 55
綜合討論 56
研究限制與建議 61
一、理論的部分 61
二、實驗的部分 61
三、干擾變項的部分 62
參考文獻 63
附錄一:IGT每疊牌40次選擇之累積金額表 68
邱耀初(2012)。愛荷華賭局作業作為驗證軀體標記假說的難題:驗證及解決。行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫期末報告(編號: NSC 100-2410-H-031 -021)。
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.
Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1997). Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science, 275,1293-1295.
Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (2005). The Iowa Gambling Task and the somatic marker hypothesis: Some questions and answers. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 159–162.
Bechara, A., Tranel, D., & Damasio, H. (2000). Characterization of the decision-making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions. Brain, 123, 2189-2202
Bechara, A., Tranel, D., Damasio, H. & Lee. G. P., (1999). Different contributions of the human amygdale and ventromedial prefrontal cortex to decision-making. The journal of Neuroscience, 19, 5473-5481.
Cella, M. Dymond, S. Cooper, A. & Turnbull, O. H. (2012) Cognitive decision modelling of emotion-based learning impairment in schizophrenia The role of awareness. Psychiatry Research, 196, 15-19
Chiu, Y. C., & Lin, C.H. (2007). Is deck C an advantageous deck in the Iowa Gambling Task? Behavioral and Brain Functions, 3(37).
Chiu, Y. C., Lin, C. H., Huang, J. T., Lin, S., Lee, P. L., & Hsieh, J. C. (2008). Immediate gain is long-term loss: Are there foresighted decision makers in the Iowa Gambling Task? Behavioral and Brain Functions, 4, 13.
Colombetti, G. (2008). The somatic marker hypotheses, and what the Iowa Gambling Task does and does not show. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 59(1), 51-71.
Damasio, A. R. (1994) Descartes’ error: emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York : Putnam (Grosset Books)
Demaree, H. A., Burns, K. J., & DeDonno, M. A. (2010). Intelligence, but not emotional intelligence, predicts Iowa Gambling Task performance. Intelligence, 38(2), 249-254.
Dunn, B. D., Dalgleish, T., & Lawrence, A. D. (2006).The somatic marker hypothesis: A critical evaluation. Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews, 30, 239–271.
Evans, C. Y., Bowman, C. H., & Turnbull, O. H. (2005). Subjective Awareness on the Iowa gambling task: The key role of emotional experience in schizophrenia. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 27, 656–664.
Fernie, G., & Tunney, R. J. (2006). Some decks are better than others: the effect of reinforcer type and task instructions on learning in the Iowa Gambling Task. Brain and Cognition, 60(1), 94-102.
Fum, D., Napoli, A., & Stocco, A. (2008). Somatic markers and frequency effects: Does emotion really play a role on decision making in the Iowa Gambling Task? In Proceedings of 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1203–1208).
Garon, N., & Moore, C. (2007). Awareness and symbol use improves future-oriented decision making in preschoolers. Developmental Neuropsychology, 31, 39–59.
Guillaume, S., Jollant, F., Jaussent, I., Lawrence, N., Malafosse, A., and Courtet, P. (2009). Somatic markers and explicit knowledge are both involved in decision-making. Neuropsychologia, 47(10), 2120–2124.
Gutbrod, K., Krouzel, C., Hofer, H., Muri, R., Perrig, W., & Ptak, R. (2006). Decision-making in amnesia: Do advantageous decisions require conscious knowledge of previous behavioural choices? Neuropsychologia, 44, 1315–1324.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982) Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lin, C.H., Chiu, Y.C , & Huang, J.T, (2008) Reexamining the Effect of Long-Term Outcome and Gain-Loss Frequency: From Unconsciousness to Consciousness Paper presented at the ASSC 12th Annual Meeting, Taipei.
Lin, C. H., Chiu, Y. C., Lee, P. L., & Hsieh, J. C. (2004). The preferences of decision-making in IOWA Gambling Task: The testing of frequency effect and long-term outcomes in Somatic Marker Hypothesis. 2nd Conference of NeuroEconnomics; Munster, Germany.
Lin, C.H., Chiu, Y.C., Lee, P.L., & Hsieh, J.C. (2007). Is deck B a disadvantageous deck in the Iowa Gambling Task? Behavioral and Brain Functions, 3, 16.
Lin, C. H., Song, T. J., Lin, Y. K., & Chiu, Y. C. (2012). Mirrored Prominent Deck B Phenomenon: Frequent Small Losses Override Infrequent Large Gains in the Inverted Iowa Gambling Task. PloS one, 7(10), e47202.
Loewenstein, G., Rick, S., & Cohen, J. D. (2008). Neuroeconomics. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 647−672.
Maia, T. V., & McClelland, J. L. (2004). A reexamination of the evidence for the somatic marker hypothesis: What participants really know in the Iowa gambling task. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, 16075-16080.
Maia, T. V., & McClelland, J. L. (2005). The somatic marker hypothesis: Still many questions but no answers. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 162–164.
Persaud, N., McLeod, P., & Cowey, A. (2007). Post-decision wagering objectively measures awareness. Nature Neuroscience, 10, 257–261.
Pham, M. T. (2007). Emotion and rationality: A critical review and interpretation of empirical evidence. Review of General Psychology, 11(2), 155-178.
Price, J.L., (2005). Free will versus survival: brain systems that underlie intrinsic constraints on behavior. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 493(1), 132–139
Rivalan, M., Ahmed, S.H., & Dellu-Hagedorn, F., (2009). Risk-prone individuals prefer the wrong options on a rat version of the Iowa Gambling Task. Biological Psychiatry 66, 743-749.
Steingroever, H., Wetzels, R., Horstmann, A., Neumann, J., Wagenmakers. E. J. (2013). Performance of healthy participants on the Iowa Gambling Task. Psychological Assessment, 25, 180–193.
Stocco, A., & Fum, D. (2008). Implicit emotional biases in decision making: The case of the Iowa Gambling Task. Brain and Cognition, 66, 253–259.
Toplak, M.E., Sorge, G.B., West, R.F., & Stanovich, K.E. (2010). Decision making and cognitive abilities: A review of associations between Iowa Gambling task performance, executive functions and intelligence. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(5), 562-581.
Visagan, R., Xiang, A., & Lamar, M., (2011). Comparison of deck- and trial-based approaches to advantageous decision making on the iowa gambling task. Psychological Assessment, 24, 455-463
Wagar, B. M., & Dixon, M. (2006). Affective guidance in the Iowa gambling task.Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioural Neuroscience, 6, 277–290.
Wilder, K.E., Weinberger, D.R., & Goldberg, T.E., (1998). Operant conditioning and the orbitofrontal cortex in schizophrenic patients: unexpected evidence. Schizophrenia Research, 30, 169-174.

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top