Abstract
The proponents of the somatic marker hypothesis presume that rational decision making is guided by emotional reactions that are developed from prior experience. Supporting evidence for the hypothesis comes almost exclusively from the short-term affective reactions that are learned during the course of a hypothetical decision-making task—the gambling task (GT). We examined GT performance and affective reactions to choices when those choices were biased by words that had preexisting affective value. In one experiment, affectively valued words directly signaled good and bad choices. A congruent relation between affective value of word and choice outcome improved GT performance, whereas an incongruent relation greatly interfered with performance. In another experiment, affectively valued words were maintained as a working memory (WM) load between GT choices. A WM load with affectively positive words somewhat improved GT performance, whereas affectively negative words interfered with performance. Somatic markers—indicated by differential anticipatory skin conductance response (SCR ) amplitude for good and bad choices—appeared at a point in the GT session when choice performance was superior. However, differential SCR developed during the session after good choice performance was already established. These results indicate that preexisting affective biases can influence GT decision making. In addition, the somatic markers that are regular accompaniments of GT decision making appeared to be temporally lagging indicators of choice performance. 2006 Psychonomic Society, Inc.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bechara, A. (2004). The role of emotion in decision-making: Evidence from neurological patients with orbitofrontal damage. Brain & Cognition, 55, 30–40.
Bechara, A., & Damasio, A. R. (2005). The somatic marker hypothesis: A neural theory of economic decisions. Games & Economic Behavior, 52, 336–372.
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., & Damasio, A. R. (2000). Emotion, decision making and the orbitofrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 10, 295–307.
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. (1998). Dissociation of working memory from decision making within the human prefrontal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 18, 428–437.
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., Dolan, S., & Hindes, A. (2002). Decision-making and addiction (part II): Myopia for the future or hypersensitivity to reward? Neuropsychologia, 40, 1690–1705.
Bechara, A., Tranel, D., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (1996). Failure to respond autonomically to anticipated future outcomes following damage to the prefrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 6, 215–225.
Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1999). Affective norms for English words (ANEW): Stimuli, instructional manual and affective ratings (Tech. Rep. C-1). Gainesville: University of Florida, Center for Research in Psychophysiology.
Crawford, J. R., & Henry, J. D. (2004). The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS): Construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 245–265.
Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Grosset/Putnam.
Damasio, A. R., Tranel, D., & Damasio, H. (1991). Somatic markers and the guidance of behavior: Theory and preliminary testing. In H. S. Levin, H. M. Eisenberg, & A. L. Benton (Eds.), Frontal lobe function and dysfunction (pp. 217–229). New York: Oxford University Press.
Dawson, M. E., Schell, A. M., & Filion, D. L. (2000). The electrodermal system. In J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary, & G. G. Berntson (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology (2nd ed., pp. 200–223). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dolan, R. J. (2002). Emotion, cognition, and behavior. Science, 298, 1191–1194.
Dunn, B. D., Dalgleish, T., & Lawrence, A. D. (2006). The somatic marker hypothesis: A critical evaluation. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30, 239–271.
Fiedler, K., & Freytag, P. (2004). Pseudocontingencies. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 87, 453–467.
Fiedler, K., Walther, E., Freytag, P., & Plessner, H. (2002). Judgment biases in a simulated classroom—A cognitive-environmental approach. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 88, 527–561.
Gray, J. R. (2001). Emotional modulation of cognitive control: Approach-withdrawal states double-dissociate spatial from verbal two-back task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 436–452.
Gray, J. R., Braver, T. S., & Raichle, M. E. (2002). Integration of emotion and cognition in the lateral prefrontal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99, 4115–4120.
Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44, 389–400.
Hinson, J. M., Jameson, T. L., & Whitney, P. (2002). Somatic markers, working memory, and decision making. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 2, 341–353.
Jameson, T. L., Hinson, J. M., & Whitney, P. (2004). Components of working memory and somatic markers in decision making. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 515–520.
Loewenstein, G., & Lerner, J. S. (2003). The role of affect in decision making. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 619–642). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Manes, F., Sahakian, B., Clark, L., Rogers, R., Antoun, N., Aitken, M., & Robbins, T. (2002). Decision-making processes following damage to the prefrontal cortex. Brain, 125, 624–639.
Perlstein, W. M., Elbert, T., & Stenger, V. A. (2002). Dissociation in human prefrontal cortex of affective influences on working memoryrelated activity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99, 1736–1741.
Rolls, E. T. (1999). The brain and emotion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rolls, E. T. (2004). The functions of the orbitofrontal cortex. Brain & Cognition, 55, 11–29.
Tomb, I., Hauser, M., Deldin, P., & Caramazza, A. (2002). Do somatic markers mediate decisions on the gambling task? Nature Neuroscience, 5, 1103–1104.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hinson, J.M., Whitney, P., Holben, H. et al. Affective biasing of choices in gambling task decision making. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 6, 190–200 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.6.3.190
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.6.3.190