Psychology 335 Ubc

Research Objectives

The research completed by Shiv et al (2004), was to identify whether or not dysfunctions in neural systems controlling emotions could influence and promote individual’s gambling abilities. Emotions can be either beneficial or detrimental to one’s behaviour; it depends on what task at hand is and the individual differences. Previous research in neuroscience has highlighted the positive roles of emotions in everyday decision making, Shiv et al (2004) wanted to test out if individuals with dysfunctional emotional reactions could actually make better decisions than normal individuals. A specific scenario that brought curiosity to the researchers was how a patient with ventromedial prefrontal damage, an area responsible for fear, responded accurately to hazardous road conditions. Instead of becoming fearful and stepping on the breaks during icy roads, this individual lacked fear which allowed the the patient to assess the situation and respond properly. This patient with ventromedial prefrontal cortex damage handled the hazardous situation logically rather than emotionally, allowing him to react properly. Shiv et al (2004) are specifically looking at how dysfunctions in neural systems controlling emotions could affect gambling abilities. As normal individuals usually display myopic loss aversion, high levels of risk aversion towards gambling, this study wants to detect if individuals with injuries with emotional brain circuitry systems would also continue to display myopic loss aversion. If myopic loss aversion is a result from an emotional basis, then any dysfunctions in systems controlling emotions should reduce the levels of risk aversion. Even gambles with a positive expected value displays myopic loss aversion to normal individuals. The research wants to find out if individuals will benefit with emotional brain circuitry injuries where risk taking results in positive expected values. Shiv et al (2004) hypothesized that decision making task simulated by real life investment decisions, where risk taking is rewarded, then individuals with dysfunctional systems would receive less myopic risk aversion and make more advantageous gambling decisions.

Design of Research and Limitations

This study utilized a quasi-experimental design, as participants with specific injuries in their neural circuitry were chosen. A total of 41 participants were included in this study, with 19 of them having no injuries in their brain circuity and 15 individuals with lesions in neural circuitry that relates to emotions and 7 control patients with lesions in the brain that are not involved in emotional processes. The target participants, lesions in circuity that affects emotional control, included those with lesions in amygdala (bilaterally; 3 patients), the orbitofrontal cortex (bilaterally; 9 patients), or the right insular or somatosensory cortex (4 patients). Lesions in the prefrontal cortex are due to stroke or surgical removal of a meningioma, and those in the right insular or somatosensory regions are also due to stroke. However, regions in the amygdala are either due to herpes simplex encephalitis (2 patients) or Urbach Weithe disease (1 patient). The control patients, lesions in areas unrelated to emotional processes, had lesions in the right (4 patients) or left (3 patients) dorsolateral sector of the prefrontal cortex. The control patients all had lesions due to stroke. All the participants involved in the study had normal IQ and intelligence. All target patients and control patients were asked to do the Iowa Gambling Task as a control to see how their emotions would affect their results. As predicted from previous studies, target patients showed lower scores on the task while control patients performed well. This shows that the different brain area lesions affect these patients differently, with a general trend for target patients to perform poorly on the IGT and control patients to do well in it. The Iowa Gambling Task always show trends of those with normal brain circuitry and whom are not problem gamblers do well in it.

The purpose of the experiment was to provide a situation where there is a long term positive expected value and to see any differences between the participants. Each participant was given $20 worth of play money and the option to either invest or to not invest every round. The experimenter would then tell them to treat the play money as real money, since their losses or wins would result in an actual gift certificate of the same degree. This experiment consisted a total of 20 investment rounds for each participant of the study. For every round, each participant can decide to either invest a dollar or not. Those who decide against investing were allowed to keep their dollar, and those who invested had a 50% chance to either win $2.50 or lose their initial investment. Results were decided through a fair coin toss in plain view of the participants.

As this experiment is not randomly selective of its participants, any correlations cannot be deemed causations. Perhaps these individuals already had gambling tendencies in the past, or are victims of problem gambling. Their education may be a defining difference in regards to the results as well. The average IQ of control patients were slightly higher than those of the normal participants. This difference could be a salient factor in their investment knowledge and abilities. Their education and field of work can also be a third variable to the experiment results. Those with prior education with smart investments would fare better on this task. This study does not directly study how damage to brain circuitry in emotional processes is relates to driving with proper technique in icy conditions. The research could have assessed more on situations rather than investment decisions to assess it. Future research should focus on how decisions is affected by the brain and emotions. It can also study what factors affect decisions the most, emotion or logic.

Research Article Findings

The results showed that target patients made decisions that were far closer to a profit-maximizing view point than both control patients and normal participants. The percentage of investment rounds played by target patients were also far greater than those from the other conditions. As predicted, the money made by those who more frequently invested—target patients—were greater than those who did not invest as frequently. Participants in each of the three conditions all started at roughly the same benchmark for deciding to investment, around 80%. However, in subsequent rounds those from the control