Psychology 335 Ubc

...

patients and normal participants tended to invest in fewer rounds which resulted in a more conservative investment strategy. A potential explanation for this is that the emotional reactions to the outcomes on preceding rounds affected decisions on subsequent rounds for normal and control participants.

The experiment had to implement a way to test out if outcomes of preceding rounds affected. It required researchers to code each of the participants, whether or not they choose to invest and also the result of the investments. Participants were coded with a specific title such as “dummy1” for participant 1 and they would also be coded with “invest-won” or “invest-lost” depending on how the investment went. Any significant correlations in interactions between previous and subsequent rounds would determine that the effects of decisions and outcomes from preceding rounds impacted the successive rounds. Predictions were that interactions would be different between those of target patients and those of control participants. Indeed, interactions in the model were significant between the three condition groups. Results suggest that normal participants and control patients responded differently from target patients both during rounds when they had won and those when they had lost. Results were significant. Depending on either a win or a loss, normal participants and control patients would adjust their investment decisions accordingly. If they had just won the investment, they are both more likely to invest in subsequent ones; normal participants invest at 61.7% and control patients at 75.0% after wins. However, following losses normal participants and control patients become far less risk aversive; at 40% and 37.1% investment rates respectively. On the other hand, the target patients would invest in 85% of total investment rounds regardless of a win or a loss in the preceding investment. This means that they are less likely to be affected by myopic loss aversion and their past experiences do not affect their risk aversion.

How the Research Informs the Public

This research by Shiv et al (2004) shows that not everyone with lesions in the brain are a detriment to society or cannot do things normal people can do properly. It brings into light the possibility and positivity to individuals with brain lesions with the knowledge of things they do better than normal individuals. In particular, the emotional neural circuitry areas were studied and actually proved to be superior to those with normal brain circuitry in some aspects. However, the concluding results does not state that those with lesions in emotional circuitry regions are better off in all aspects compared to normal individuals. They only proved that these target patients do better on tasks where emotional regulation may hinder one’s performance, specifically in positive expected value investments in this research. However, this research does not mean that those with lesions in areas of the brain that affects emotions should go out and gamble. Their risk aversive attitudes and lack of fear will cause them to continuously gamble in games that have negative expected values in the casino. The public should be informed that they should not always base their decisions on emotional feelings and instead should be more logical and calm in situations where nervousness or fear arises. Having a clear and calm mindset instead of being emotional can help individuals in situations where impulsive actions are unfavourable.

The public should be aware of all the fallacies and heuristics the brain does that can cause troubles. Some people trust in their own gut feelings, but like this study has concluded, our gut feelings or emotions are not always accurate. Instead we must assess situations objectively.

Media Coverage Critique

The media coverage from The Guardian does not consider any factors that may lead to the conclusion that those with brain damages are better with emotional processes and specifically gambling. The news article is written in a highly subjective view point and tries to establish that having a healthy brain is a downfall for gambling. It briefly goes over the procedure without explaining the purpose and the independent variables that make the study valid. No background information is given on why the procedure was purposely chosen. The media coverage forgets to mention that the experiment used a positive expected value and the general trends of normal participants being risk aversive.