Perceived time pressure and the Iowa Gambling Task

Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 3, No. 8, December 2008, pp. 636–640
Perceived time pressure and the Iowa Gambling Task
Michael A. DeDonno? and Heath A. Demaree
Department of Psychology
Case Western Reserve University
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of perceived time pressure on a learning-based task called
the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT). One hundred and sixty-three participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups.
The experimental group was informed that the time allotted was typically insuf?cient to learn and successfully complete
the task. The control group was informed that the time allotted was typically suf?cient to learn and successfully complete
the task. Both groups completed the IGT and performance was recorded. The major ?nding was that participants who
were advised that the amount of time allotted was typically insuf?cient to complete the task performed signi?cantly
worse than those who were advised that time was typically suf?cient to complete the task.
Keywords: Iowa Gambling Task; decision making; time pressure.
1 Introduction
two remaining decks — C and D — have smaller rewards
than decks A and B, but the wins outweigh the losses; that
Research shows that real time constraints adversely in?u-
is, the decks have positive utility (they are “good decks”).
ence IGT performance (Cella, Dymond, Cooper, & Turn-
The goal of the task is to maximize pro?t on a loan of play
bull, 2007). There remains a need, however, to deter-
money.
mine how perceived time pressure affects IGT decision-
In one study using the IGT, Bechara et al. (1999) tested
making. In essence, is IGT performance impaired by real
three groups of people: healthy controls, people with le-
time constraints or simply the perception of time con-
sions in the brain’s ventromedial prefrontal cortex, and
straints? The present research was designed to deter-
people with lesions in the amygdala of the brain. All par-
mine how perceived time pressure in?uences IGT perfor-
ticipants performed the IGT while their skin conductance
mance.
responses were measured. The healthy participants gen-
erated skin conductance responses at two different points
throughout the task. First, presumably because they were
1.1 The Iowa Gambling Task and the So-
having emotional responses to the rewards and punish-
matic Marker Hypothesis
ments received, participants generated skin conductance
responses after selecting each card. Second, within the
The IGT is a well-established assessment tool, and its use
selection of the ?rst twenty cards, normal participants be-
by researchers has helped reveal the value emotions play
gan generating skin conductance responses prior to the
in at least some forms of decision making (Evans, Kem-
selection of cards, and these “anticipatory” skin conduc-
ish, & Turnbull, 2004). Because the IGT involves uncer-
tance responses were most pronounced when selecting
tainty, reward, and punishment, it is thought to simulate
cards from one of the two bad decks. Conversely, peo-
real-world decision-making (Bechara, Damasio, Dama-
ple with ventromedial prefrontal cortex or amygdala le-
sio, & Lee, 1999). In the IGT, participants choose from
sions failed to generate anticipatory skin conductance re-
among fours decks of cards with the goal of making as
sponses before selecting bad cards and continued to se-
much money as possible. For each card selected, the par-
lect from the bad decks throughout the 100 card selec-
ticipant receives a reward (i.e., s/he wins money). On
tions (Bechara et al., 1999). This observation, as well
some trials, however, an additional punishment is expe-
as data from other studies (e.g., Bechara, Tranel, Dama-
rienced (i.e., s/he loses money). Two decks — A and B
sio, & Damasio, 1996; Bechara & Damasio, 2005: Ernst,
— have high gains but larger relative losses; that is, the
Bolla, Mouratidis, Contoreggi, Matochik, Kurian, Cadet,
decks have negative utility (they are “bad decks”). The
Kimes, & London, 2002; but see Maia & McClelland,
?Address: Department of Psychology, Case Western Reserve Uni-
2004), support the Somatic Marker Hypothesis (SMH;
versity, Cleveland, Ohio 44106. Email: michael.dedonno@yahoo.com
Damasio, 1994).
636

---

Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 3, No. 8, December 2008
Perceived time pressure and the IGT
637
The SMH postulates that decision making is in?uenced
Because perceived time pressure may affect both
by emotion-based biasing signals (somatic markers) that
strategies employed and emotional experiences while
occur during the consideration of options in the decision
people make real-life decisions, it is important to as-
making process (Bechara & Damasio, 2005). For every
sess how perceived time pressure affects performance
decision option available, a somatic state is generated ei-
on a realistic decision-making task such as the IGT. In-
ther by physiological changes within the body proper (the
terestingly, opposite results are possible. When time is
“body loop”) or the brain’s mental representation of the
perceived as insuf?cient, participants’ IGT performances
anticipated physiological responses that would take place
may be improved if they rely more heavily on emotional
in the body (the “as if body loop”) (Dunn, Dalgleish, &
processes, which are thought to be integral to good IGT
Lawrence, 2006). These somatic states are thought to
performance (e.g., Bechara et al., 1999). Conversely, be-
aid in rapid choice selection under time pressure (P?s-
cause IGT performance is also based on cognitive pro-
ter & Bohm, 2008). When making decisions, impairment
cesses (e.g., Maia & McClelland; 2004; Yechiam, Good-
of these emotional signals can adversely affect speed of
night, Bates, Busemeyer, Dodge, Pettit, & Newman,
deliberation and cause people to make sub-optimal deci-
2006), the perception of time pressure may impair IGT
sions (Bechara & Damasio, 2005). For example, Manes
performance because people might reduce the number of
and colleagues (2002) found that patients with emotional
variables they consider when selecting cards.
processing de?cits resulting from orbitofrontal lesions in
the brain evidenced prolonged deliberation and impaired
IGT performance.
1.3 The present study
1.2 IGT in the real-world
The purpose of the present study, then, was to explore the
effect of perceived time pressure on IGT performance.
Although research involving the IGT has frequently fo-
The experimental group was informed that the time al-
cused on clinical populations (e.g., Bechara et al., 1999;
lotted was typically insuf?cient to successfully complete
Levine, Black, Cheung, Campbell, O’Toole, & Schwartz,
the task while the control group was informed that the
2005; Best, Williams, & Coccaro, 2002), researchers
time allotted was typically suf?cient to complete the task.
have also uncovered daily life factors that affect IGT per-
Although Cella and colleagues (2007) found that actual
formance in healthy individuals. Cella and colleagues
time limits impaired IGT performance, the present study
(2007), for example, found that people who were given
explored how the perception of time pressure affects IGT
less time to select a card performed worse relative to
performance. The differences between these two stud-
those who were given more time to select a card. de
ies are as follows: First, Cella and colleagues (2007) did
Vries, Holland, and Witteman (2008) found that, com-
not provide any information to their participants regard-
pared to people in negative mood states, people in posi-
ing whether the time allotted was suf?cient or insuf?-
tive mood states selected more cards from the good decks
cient. Rather, they instructed their participants by say-
during the second block (i.e., cards 21–40) of the game.
ing, “Your task is to select one card at a time as fast as
These studies provide evidence that time pressure and
you can. . . ” (Cella et al., 2007). Second, in Cella et al.’s
mood can affect IGT performance.
(2007) study, the message “Too slow!” was displayed on
A question then arises as to the potential effect of
the screen whenever a participant failed to make a card
perceived time pressure on IGT performance. Although
selection within the speci?ed time limit. Finally, card se-
most studies have treated time-pressure as a task charac-
lections were not recorded on trials that the participant
teristic, researchers have also found that the mere percep-
was too slow; this resulted in fewer than 100 trials per
tion of time pressure may affect cognitive performance
participant (Cella et al., 2007). In the present study, the
(e.g., Maule & Maillet-Hausswrith, 1995). One model
only instructions involving the perception of time pres-
linking perceived time pressure to task performance, the
sure were provided at the start of the task and all 100
Variable State Activation Theory, suggests that impaired
trials for every participant were used in the analysis. As a
decision making performance can occur when the indi-
result of these differences in experimental design, the fo-
vidual feels time is insuf?cient to successfully perform
cus in the present study shifted from exploring how actual
the task at hand (Maule & Hockey, 1993). One reason for
time pressure affects IGT performance to how perceived
this is that people change the strategies they use to make
pressure affects it1
decisions when they feel time pressure. For example, the
sequential comparison approach posits that people con-
1The present study also manipulated the amount of time each sub-
sider fewer variables when they feel a need to make faster
ject had to make decisions on each trial of the IGT. However, because
the effectiveness of the manipulation was questionable and because the
decisions (Aschenbrener, Albert, & Schmalhofer, 1984;
manipulation did not signi?cantly in?uence IGT performance, these re-
Busemeyer, 1985).
sults are not discussed.

---

Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 3, No. 8, December 2008
Perceived time pressure and the IGT
638
2 Methods
2.1 Subjects
Participants were undergraduate students attending a pri-
vate Midwest university enrolled in an introductory psy-
chology course. A total of one hundred and sixty-three
participants completed the study.
2.2 Apparatus and Materials
The present study included three standard personal com-
puters running Windows 98. Additional software in-
cluded the IGT application. Each computer was placed in
a separate room with a door to minimize external noise.
Standard 15-inch monitors were used and placed about
15 inches from the participant.
In the IGT, participants were presented four decks of
cards on a computer screen. The decks were labeled A, B,
Figure 1: IGT performance as a function of perceived
C, and D. Using a mouse, the participant was allowed to
time pressure and block.
select a card from any of the four decks. The participant
selected one card at a time from any of the four decks
Tranel & Damasio, 2000; Bechara & Damasio, 2005).
and was free to switch from one deck to another at any
Once the participant indicated s/he understood the in-
time. After selecting a card, a message was displayed
structions, s/he was allowed to start the IGT.
indicating the amount of play money won (reward). On
some cards, the win message was followed by a message
indicating the amount of play money lost (punishment).
3 Results
At the top of the screen was a green bar that changed
according to the amount of money won or lost. Below the
The dependent variable for data analyses was the number
green bar was a red bar that showed the amount of money
of selections from good decks C and C minus the num-
borrowed; this amount was $2,000.00 at the beginning of
ber of selections from bad decks A and B (i.e., [C+D]–
the game. The difference between the two bars was the
[A+B]). If a participant selected more bad relative to good
total amount of play money won or lost. The goal of the
decks, s/he would have a negative score. As is typical in
task was to maximize pro?t on a loan of play money.
research involving the IGT (e.g., Bechara et al., 2000),
The sample in the present study was randomly divided
the 100 card selections were separated into ?ve blocks of
into two groups. Both groups were instructed to select a
twenty cards (i.e., Block 1 = Trials 1–20, Block 2 = Tri-
card within two seconds of seeing “pick a card” on the
als, 21–40 . . . Block 5 = Trials 81–100). This allowed
computer screen. Perception of time was manipulated by
for the tracking of changes in performance as the partici-
informing the experimental group that the time allotted
pants played the game.
was typically insuf?cient to learn and successfully com-
Figure 1 shows the results. A 2 (Suf?ciency: Insuf?-
plete the task while the control group was informed that
cient, Suf?cient) x 5 (Block: 1–20, 21–40, 41–60, 61–80,
the time allotted was typically suf?cient to learn and suc-
81–100) ANOVA found that main effect for the between-
cessfully complete the task.
subjects factor of Suf?ciency was signi?cant F(1,161) =
8.404, p = .004. Collapsing across Blocks, the Suf?cient
2.3 Procedure
group (M = 22.49, SD = 30.53) selected more cards from
the good decks than the Insuf?cient group (M = 9.14,
After each participant signed a consent form, the exper-
SD = 27.90). The Block by Suf?ciency interaction was
imenter gave written instructions for the IGT, informed
not statistically signi?cant, F(4,644) = 1.877, p = .113.
the participant that s/he had 2 seconds to select each card
In addition, the within-subjects factor of Block was sig-
and that the time provided was either suf?cient (con-
ni?cant F(4,644) = 73.810, p = .000. As can be seen
trol group) or insuf?cient (experimental group) to learn
in Figure 1, collapsing across both groups, participants
and successfully complete the task. The gambling task
increasingly sampled from good decks as the game pro-
instructions used for both groups were the standard in-
gressed. Post-hoc analyses using the least signi?cant dif-
structions used in other IGT experiments (e.g., Bechara,
ference (LSD) test revealed signi?cant differences (p <

---

Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 3, No. 8, December 2008
Perceived time pressure and the IGT
639
.05) in performance between each individual block and
2000). Not surprisingly, Tamblyn and colleagues (1997)
all other blocks.
found that physicians tend to prescribe inappropriate
medications during shorter of?ce visits. Although more
time may be needed to optimize diagnostic accuracy, it
4 Discussion
may also be bene?cial for managers of HMO’s to work
more closely with their physicians in instilling a sense of
The present study was the ?rst to investigate the rela-
suf?ciency in current time allotments.
tionship between perceived time pressure and IGT per-
To conclude, we believe perceived time pressure can
formance. Participants who were advised that the time
affect the quality of real-life decisions. The present study
allotted was insuf?cient performed worse than those who
demonstrated that a belief of time being insuf?cient can
were advised that time was suf?cient. This ?nding further
impair IGT performance throughout the task. It remains
supports the Variable State Activation Theory by demon-
to be determined why this happened.
strating that perceived time pressure impairs performance
on a real-life decision-making task.
It is worth noting that the perception of time pressure
References
impaired IGT performance over an extended period of
time. Other manipulations have been found to cause tran-
Aschenbrener, K. M., Albert, D., & Schmalhofer, F.
sient changes in IGT performance. For example, de Vries
(1984). Stochastic choice heuristics. Acta Psycholog-
et al. (2008) found that negative mood was associated
ica, 56, 153–166.
with fewer good card selections during Block 2 of the
Bechara, A., Tranel, D., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A.
IGT only. In the present study, the perception of time in-
R. (1996). Failure to respond autonomically to antici-
suf?ciency did not interact with block thereby suggesting
pated future outcomes following damage to prefrontal
that the mere perception of time pressure may be a more
cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 6, 215–225.
robust factor in IGT performance than mood. It is also no-
Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Damasio, A.R., & Lee, G.P.
table that, compared to the Cella et al. (2007) study which
(1999). Different contributions of the human amyg-
reminded participants throughout the task that they were
dala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex to decision-
under real time pressure, the present study informed par-
making. Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 5473–5481.
ticipants only once (prior to IGT administration) that the
Bechara, A., Tranel, D., & Damasio, H. (2000). Char-
time allotted was either suf?cient or insuf?cient. It ap-
acterization of the decision-making de?cit of patients
pears that the communication of time insuf?ciency – even
with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions. Brain,
when announced only once — can have a long-lasting ef-
123, 2189–2202.
fect on real-life decision-making.
Bechara, A., & Damasio, A. R. (2005). The somatic
There are speci?c real-world bene?ts to understand-
marker hypothesis: A neural theory of economic de-
ing the effects of perceived time pressure on decision
cision. Games and Economic Behavior, 52, 336–372.
making performance. For example, research has found
Best, M., Williams, J. M., & Coccaro, E. F. (2002). Evi-
that members of project teams who perceived a high de-
dence for a dysfunctional prefrontal circuit in patients
gree of time pressure had lower job satisfaction and felt
with an impulsive aggressive disorder. Proceedings of
that overall project objectives were less often attained
National Academy of Sciences, 99, 8448–8453.
(Nordqvist, Hovmark & Zika-Viktorsson, 2004). This
Busemeyer, J. R. (1985). Decision making under uncer-
?nding, taken together with the present research, sug-
tainty: A comparison of simple scalability, ?xed sam-
gests that employee performance and overall project suc-
ple, and sequential-sampling models. Journal of Ex-
cess may bene?t from building a sense of adequacy in a
perimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cog-
project’s time-line.
nition, 11, 538–564.
Perhaps nowhere can the impact of increased time
Cella, M., Dymond, S., Cooper, A., & Turnbull, O.
pressure be seen than in the practice of medicine. The
(2007). Effects of decision-phase time constraints on
advent of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) ap-
emotion-based learning in the Iowa Gambling Task.
pears to have reduced the amount of time physicians
Brain and Cognition, 64, 164–169.
spend with patients. In fact, one study found that HMO
Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes Error: Emotion, Rea-
physicians were allotted signi?cantly less time for new
son and the Human Brain. New York: Avon.
patients (31 minutes) than those practicing either solo
de Vries, M., Holland, R. W., & Witteman, C. L. (2008).
(39 minutes) or in academic settings (43 minutes), and
In the winning mood: Affect in the Iowa gambling
83% of HMO family physicians felt their allotted time
task. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 42–50.
was insuf?cient to provide appropriate diagnosis (Linzer,
Dunn, B. D., Dalgleish, T., & Lawrence, A. D. (2006).
Konrad, Douglas, McMurray, Pathman Williams, et al.,
The somatic marker hypothesis: A critical evaluation.

---

Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 3, No. 8, December 2008
Perceived time pressure and the IGT
640
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 30, 239–
Maule, A. J., & Hockey, G. R.J. (Ed.). (1993). State,
271.
stress and time pressure. New York: Plenum.
Ernst, M., Bolla, K., Mouratidis, M., Contoreggi, C., Ma-
Maule, A. J., & Maillet-Hausswirth, P. (1995, August).
tochik, J. A., Kurian, V., Cadet, J. L., Kimes, A. S.,
The mediating effect of subjective appraisal, cognitive
& London, E. D. (2002). Decision-making in a risk-
control and changes in affect in determining the effects
taking task: A PET study. Neuropsychopharmacology,
of time pressure on risk taking. Paper presented at the
26, 682–691.
15th Research Conference on Subjective Probability,
Evans, C., Kemish, K., & Turnbull, O. (2004). Paradox-
Utility and Decision Making, Jerusalem.
ical effects of education on the Iowa Gambling Task.
Nordqvist, S., Hovmark, S., & Zika-Viktorsson, A.
Brain and Cognition, 54, 240–244.
(2004). Perceived time pressure and social processes
Levine, B., Black, S. E., Cheung, G., Campbell, A.,
in project teams. International Journal of Project Man-
O’Toole, C., & Schwartz, M. L. (2005). Gambling task
agement, 22, 463–468.
performance in traumatic brain injury. Cognitive and
P?ster, H. R., & Bohm, G. (2008). The multiplicity of
Behavioral Neurology, 18, 45–54.
emotions: A framework of emotional functions in de-
Linzer, M., Konrad, T. R., Douglas, J., McMurray, J. E.,
cision making. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 5–
Pathman, D. E., Williams, E. S., et al. (2000). Man-
17.
aged care, time pressure, and physician job satisfac-
Tamblyn, R., Berkson, L., Dauphinee W. D., Gayton, D.,
tion: results from the Physician Worklife Study. Jour-
Grad, R., Huang, A., et al. (1997). Unnecessary pre-
nal of General Internal Medicine, (15), 441–450.
scribing of NSAIDs and the management of NSAID-
Maia, T. V., & McClelland, J. L. (2004). A reexamina-
related gastropathy in medical practice. Annals of In-
tion of the evidence for the somatic marker hypothesis:
ternal Medicine, 127, 429–438.
What participants really know in the Iowa gambling
Yechiam, E., Goodnight, J., Bates, J. E., Busemeyer, J.
task. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences,
R., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., et al. (2006). A for-
101, 16075–16080.
mal cognitive model of the go/no-go discrimination
Manes, F., Sahakian, B., Clark, L., Rogers, R., Antoun,
task: Evaluation and implications. Psychological As-
N., Aitken, M., & Robbins, T. (2002). Decision-
sessment, 18, 239–249.
making processes following damage to the prefrontal
cortex. Brain, 125, 624–639.

---