ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Development and Validation of a New Risk-Taking Game: Helsinki Aiming Task (HAT).
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We introduce and describe a new risk-taking game, Helsinki Aiming Task (HAT), and test its construct (internal) and convergent (external) validity. HAT is a shooting game, in which the participants aim at a target under varying levels of "gun" inaccuracy and penalty for missing the target. It allows fine-grained examination of risk-taking behaviour, as it contains information on the effects of penalties and rewards on single, isolated decisions, immediately after each isolated event outcome. We validate HAT by studying individual responses to changing penalty levels and the accuracy of the "gun", and by comparing it to behavioural and self-reported risk measures, personality traits, and socioeconomic variables. In study one (n = 51), we evaluated risk-taking responses (measured by aiming point) and their relation to other task variables (such as penalty levels and "gun" inaccuracy). In studies two to four (Ns = 66, 21, and 50), we evaluated the associations between risk-taking (measured by aiming point and accrued penalties) and sensitivity to punishment and reward (measured by shift in aiming after reward or punishment), and contrasted performance in HAT with performance in the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) and self-reported risk variables. The game worked as expected: the participants became more cautious with increasing penalty levels and inaccuracy. The HAT risk-taking indicators (aiming point and accrued penalties) were weakly correlated with those of BART. HAT reward and punishment sensitivity was associated with extraversion, socioeconomic variables, and self-reported risk-taking. In combined analyses, HAT reinforcement sensitivity explained self-reported risk-taking rather well, whereas BART did not. HAT provides a new way to measure behavioural risk-taking, especially responses to positive and negative outcomes that could be interpreted as reward and punishment sensitivities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.