An ecological assessment of decision-making under risk and ambiguity through the virtual serious game Kalliste Decision Task
[EN] Traditional methods for evaluating decision-making provide valuable insights yet may fall short in capturing the complexity of this cognitive capacity, often providing insufficient for the multifaceted nature of decisions. The Kalliste Decision Task (KDT) is introduced as a comprehensive, ecolo...
| Autores: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2024 |
| País: | España |
| Recursos: | Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV) |
| Repositorio: | RiuNet. Repositorio Institucional de la Universitat Politécnica de Valéncia |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:riunet.upv.es:10251/207943 |
| Acesso em linha: | https://riunet.upv.es/handle/10251/207943 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palavra-chave: | Decision-making Risk taking Serious games Ecological assessment Loss aversion LENGUAJES Y SISTEMAS INFORMATICOS |
| Resumo: | [EN] Traditional methods for evaluating decision-making provide valuable insights yet may fall short in capturing the complexity of this cognitive capacity, often providing insufficient for the multifaceted nature of decisions. The Kalliste Decision Task (KDT) is introduced as a comprehensive, ecologically valid tool aimed at bridging this gap, offering a holistic perspective on decision-making. In our study, 81 participants completed KDT alongside established tasks and questionnaires, including the Mixed Gamble Task (MGT), Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), and Stimulating & Instrumental Risk Questionnaire (S&IRQ). They also completed the User Satisfaction Evaluation Questionnaire (USEQ). The results showed excellent usability, with high USEQ scores, highlighting the user-friendliness of KDT. Importantly, KDT outcomes showed significant correlations with classical decision-making variables, shedding light on participants' risk attitudes (S&IRQ), rule-based decision-making (MGT), and performance in ambiguous contexts (IGT). Moreover, hierarchical clustering analysis of KDT scores categorized participants into three distinct profiles, revealing significant differences between them on classical measures. The findings highlight KDT as a valuable tool for assessing decision-making, addressing limitations of traditional methods, and offering a comprehensive, ecologically valid approach that aligns with the complexity and heterogeneity of real-world decision-making, advancing research and providing insights for understanding and assessing decision-making across multiple domains. |
|---|