Development and Validation of a New Risk-Taking Game: Helsinki Aiming Task (HAT)

TL;DR

The Helsinki Aiming Task (HAT) is a new game that measures risk-taking behavior and how people respond to rewards and punishments.

Contribution

HAT introduces a novel method to assess risk-taking with fine-grained behavioral responses to penalties and rewards.

Findings

Participants became more cautious with higher penalties and gun inaccuracy.

HAT reward and punishment sensitivity was linked to personality traits and self-reported risk-taking.

HAT indicators explained self-reported risk better than BART.

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.

Figures