ArticleBehavior research methods2026
Jokers in the deck: A new temperature setting for the Columbia Card Task.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
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.
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.