Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 5, 2026

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
Published on: September 16, 2022
Confounding dynamic risk taking propensity with a momentum prognostic strategy: the case of the Columbia Card Task
Łukasz Markiewicz1, Elżbieta Kubińska2, Tadeusz Tyszka1
1Centre for Economic Psychology and Decision Sciences, Kozminski University Warsaw, Poland.
Abstract:
Figner et al. (2009) developed the Columbia Card Task (CCT) to measure risk-taking attitudes. This tool consists of two versions: in the COLD version the decision maker needs to state in advance how many cards (out of 32) they want to turn over (so called static risk taking), in the HOT version they have the possibility of turning over all 32 cards one-by-one until they decide to finish (dynamic risk taking). We argue that the HOT version confounds an individual's willingness to accept risk with their beliefs in trend continuation vs. trend reversal in a prognostic task. In two experimental studies we show that people believing in trend continuation (momentum subjects) turn over more cards than those believing in trend reversal (contrarians) in the HOT version of the task. However, this is not the case in the COLD version. Thus, we provide evidence that, when considered as a dynamic risk propensity measure, the number of turned over cards in the HOT version of the CCT is a contaminated measure and reflects two phenomena: (1) risk preference and (2) the decision-maker's belief in trend continuation. We speculate that other dynamic risk taking measures can also be biased by a momentum strategy.
Related Concept Videos
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
Motivational Bias
Relative Risk
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial...
Noncompartmental Analysis: Statistical Moment Theory
Decision Making: P-value Method
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is proposed. The claim is based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to the claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses: a null hypothesis would be a neutral statement while the alternative hypothesis can...

