↓ Skip to main content

Decision Making under Ambiguity and Objective Risk in Higher Age – A Review on Cognitive and Emotional Contributions

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Decision Making under Ambiguity and Objective Risk in Higher Age – A Review on Cognitive and Emotional Contributions
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02128
Pubmed ID
Authors

Magnus Liebherr, Johannes Schiebener, Heike Averbeck, Matthias Brand

Abstract

The ability of decision making plays a highly relevant role in our survival, but is adversely affected during the process of aging. The present review aims to provide a better understanding of age-related differences in decision making and the role of cognitive and emotional factors in this context. We reviewed the literature about age-effects on decision-making performance, focusing on decision making under ambiguous and objective risk. In decisions under ambiguous risks, as measured by the Iowa Gambling Task, decisions are based on the experiences with consequences. In this case, many articles have attributed age-related impairments in decision making to changes in emotional and somatic reward- and punishment processing. In decisions under objective risks, as measured for example by the Game of Dice Task, decisions can be based on explicit information about risks and consequences. In this case, age-related changes have been attributed mainly to a cognitive decline, particularly impaired executive functions. However, recent findings challenge these conclusions. The present review summarizes neuropsychological and neurophysiological findings of age-related differences in decision making under ambiguous and objective risk. In this context, the relevance of learning, but also of cognitive and emotional contributors - responsible for age-related differences in decision making - are additionally pointed out.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 17%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 24 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 29 31%
Neuroscience 11 12%
Engineering 6 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 5%
Computer Science 4 4%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 26 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 December 2017.
All research outputs
#15,483,707
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,954
of 30,248 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#266,782
of 439,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#385
of 528 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,248 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,971 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 528 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.