<p>The Columbia Card Task (CCT) is a behavioral measure of risk-taking (BMRT), which has been cited over 1,500 times (Google Scholar, 3/1/2024). The original game had two versions (Hot and Cold), measuring affective and deliberative decision-making, respectively. Each version included 54 scored rounds where the loss cards were placed at the end, and nine unscored rounds where the loss cards were placed systematically among the gain cards. Over time, the CCT has gone through many iterations on critical components, such as the number of rounds, the position of the loss cards, and the introduction of a new version (Warm). Despite this, there are several issues with the CCT, notably a need for convergent validity with other measures of risk-taking. This paper reviews different iterations of the CCT, introduces a new (Toasty) version of the CCT that is a hybrid of the hot and warm versions, explores the consequences of randomly placing the loss cards among the gain cards consistent with instructions provided to participants, and examines the impact of incentivizing participants based on their score. Results (<i>N</i> = 405) show that the Toasty version behaves similarly to the Warm but provides additional insights into risk-taking behavior. When loss cards are placed randomly, participants are still sensitive to the game’s parameters (gain amount, loss amount, and number of loss cards) and reveal the loss cards roughly half the time. Incentivizing participants in our study had little impact on the number of cards revealed.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Jokers in the deck: A new temperature setting for the Columbia Card Task

  • Kevin Kapadia,
  • Yunxiu Tang,
  • Richard John

摘要

The Columbia Card Task (CCT) is a behavioral measure of risk-taking (BMRT), which has been cited over 1,500 times (Google Scholar, 3/1/2024). The original game had two versions (Hot and Cold), measuring affective and deliberative decision-making, respectively. Each version included 54 scored rounds where the loss cards were placed at the end, and nine unscored rounds where the loss cards were placed systematically among the gain cards. Over time, the CCT has gone through many iterations on critical components, such as the number of rounds, the position of the loss cards, and the introduction of a new version (Warm). Despite this, there are several issues with the CCT, notably a need for convergent validity with other measures of risk-taking. This paper reviews different iterations of the CCT, introduces a new (Toasty) version of the CCT that is a hybrid of the hot and warm versions, explores the consequences of randomly placing the loss cards among the gain cards consistent with instructions provided to participants, and examines the impact of incentivizing participants based on their score. Results (N = 405) show that the Toasty version behaves similarly to the Warm but provides additional insights into risk-taking behavior. When loss cards are placed randomly, participants are still sensitive to the game’s parameters (gain amount, loss amount, and number of loss cards) and reveal the loss cards roughly half the time. Incentivizing participants in our study had little impact on the number of cards revealed.