Decision-making skills in ASD: performance on the Iowa Gambling Task.
Autistic adults switch card decks too often on the Iowa Gambling Task, so they learn the good decks more slowly and win less.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Ohan et al. (2015) asked adults with and without autism to play the Iowa Gambling Task. The task looks like a card game. Players pick from four decks. Some decks give big wins then bigger losses. Other decks give small wins but smaller losses. Good players learn to stick with the safer decks.
The team tracked how often each person switched decks and how fast they learned the best strategy.
What they found
The autism group picked more cards from the risky decks. They also changed decks more often. This extra switching slowed their learning. In the end they earned less play money than the control group.
The study says the problem is not just picking badly. It is changing choices too much, so the brain never locks in the better pattern.
How this fits with other research
Leung et al. (2014) looked at every lab test of "cognitive flexibility" in autism. They found most tests, like the IGT, do not clearly separate autistic from typical people. Only a parent-report checklist called the BRIEF Shift scale did. So the poor IGT scores here are real, but they are not a sure-fire diagnostic tool.
Bergmann et al. (2019) took the next step. They trained 5- to 7-year-olds with autism to shift sets in a computer game. After a few weeks the kids became more flexible and showed fewer repetitive behaviors. This suggests the deck-switching weakness L et al. found can be improved if you practice shifting in a structured way.
Alderson-Day (2011) saw a similar planning problem. Autistic kids could think of good questions in a Twenty Questions game but kept hopping to new topics. Like the IGT players, they struggled to stick with a winning plan.
Why it matters
If your client hops between tasks or reinforcers, they may miss the payoff, just like the gamblers. Start with fewer choices and give clear cues when a choice is "good." Model staying put. You can also borrow the SSIT game idea: short, fun shifting drills that reward sticking with a rule before changing to a new one. Over time this may cut repetitive switching and help smarter real-life decisions.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Cut choice arrays to two clear options and give a visual "stay with the winner" cue after each correct pick.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Decision making plays a key role in daily function, but little is known regarding how individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) make decisions. The present studies examined decision making in persons with ASD using the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), a computerized card game with the goal of earning money by deciding among decks of cards. To be successful, players need to figure out which decks are associated with winning and which are associated with losing money in the long run. Results of Study 1 indicated that participants with ASD made poorer decisions and showed slower learning of which decks earned more money compared with participants with typical development. Additionally, they made more frequent shifts between decks compared with participants with typical development. In Study 2, undergraduate students with typical development completed the IGT to examine whether instructing them to make frequent shifts between decks early in the IGT would negatively impact their decision making. Results of Study 2 suggested that when participants with typical development were required to make frequent shifts, they exhibited a slower rate of learning and poorer decision making, thus emulating participants with ASD in Study 1. The combined results suggest that the way that persons with ASD explore and attend to their environment may be related to poor decision making. Implications for cognitive learning styles are discussed.
Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research, 2015 · doi:10.1002/aur.1429