Decision Making
Betting Choice Task
Also called: gambling task with bets, betting task with explicit odds, color ratio betting task, decision-making under risk
Measure decisions under stated odds: choose the color more likely to hide a star, then bet a share of the points held, scored as the quality of decisions and risk adjustment.
7-9 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Preview any test free after you sign up.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 66
- Evidence grade
- C
- Registered clinical studies
- 24
What it measures
Measures decisions under stated odds. Each round shows 10 blue and orange tiles with a star hidden behind one; the participant chooses the color more likely to hide it, then bets a share of their points. Scores the quality of decisions (choices of the more likely color) and risk adjustment (betting more when the odds are better).
Constructs
- Decision-making under risk
- Risk adjustment
- Probability judgment
- Risk taking
Research uses
- Decision-making in addiction and gambling research
- Prefrontal and insular function in neuropsychology research
- Mood, impulsivity and risk-taking research
- Decision-making across the lifespan
How the paradigm works
The betting choice task measures decisions when the odds are shown, after the gambling task with bets of Rogers and colleagues (1999). Each round shows 10 tiles, some blue and some orange, with a star hidden behind one of them. The participant first chooses the color they think hides the star, then bets 10%, 30%, 50%, 70% or 90% of their points that they are right. The star is shown, and the bet is won or lost. Every tile is as likely as any other to hide the star, so the ratio of the colors gives the odds, and the task measures decisions under risk without any learning (Clark and colleagues, 2008).
More about the paradigm
Each block has 9 rounds, one for each count of blue tiles from 9 to 1, in an order drawn from the session's seed, so the larger color's odds run from 9 to 1 down to 6 to 4, twice each, with one even round. Blue tiles carry a circle and orange tiles a triangle, so the colors also differ in shape. Each block starts with 200 points and ends early if the points fall to 1. The standard 6 blocks give 54 rounds, after one check question and 3 practice rounds. At the end one block is drawn at random, and its final points are the task's points. The study decides what the points are worth, and the payment line says whether they are exchanged for money. There is no time limit. The tiles, colors, bet shares and points are this test's own.
The main score is the quality of decisions: the share of rounds with unequal colors on which the participant chose the larger color. Risk adjustment comes second: 2a + b - c - 2d, where a, b, c and d are the mean percents bet at 9 to 1, 8 to 2, 7 to 3 and 6 to 4 on rounds where the larger color was chosen (Clark and colleagues, 2008); it is above 0 when more is bet on better odds. Deliberation time, the median time to choose a color, risk taking, the mean percent bet after choosing the larger color, and the bet at each odds level are also reported. In Clark and colleagues (2008), healthy adults chose the larger color on about 90% of rounds and bet more at better odds; patients with damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex bet more at all odds, and patients with insular damage adjusted their bets less to the odds. Rounds with a choice or a bet under 100 ms are counted as anticipations and left out. Scores support research and do not diagnose.
Scores
- Quality of Decisions%
- Share of the rounds with unequal colors on which the larger color was chosen.
- Higher is better
- Risk Adjustmentscore
- 2a + b - c - 2d, where a, b, c and d are the mean percents bet at 9 to 1, 8 to 2, 7 to 3 and 6 to 4 on rounds where the larger color was chosen.
- Above 0 means more was bet at better odds
- Deliberation Timems
- Median time from the tiles' appearance to the color choice.
- Informational
- Risk Taking%
- Mean percent of the points bet on rounds where the larger color was chosen.
- Higher means larger bets
- Overall Bet%
- Mean percent of the points bet on every round.
- Informational
- Bet at 9 to 1%
- Mean percent bet at 9 to 1 odds on rounds where the larger color was chosen.
- Informational
- Bet at 8 to 2%
- Mean percent bet at 8 to 2 odds on rounds where the larger color was chosen.
- Informational
- Bet at 7 to 3%
- Mean percent bet at 7 to 3 odds on rounds where the larger color was chosen.
- Informational
- Bet at 6 to 4%
- Mean percent bet at 6 to 4 odds on rounds where the larger color was chosen.
- Informational
- Mean Final Pointspoints
- Mean points at the end of the finished blocks, each of which starts with 200.
- Informational
- Blocks Ended Earlycount
- Blocks that ended early because the points fell to 1.
- Informational
- Check Correctflag
- 1 when the check question about winning a bet was answered correctly, 0 when not.
- 1 supports interpretation
- Anticipationscount
- Rounds with a color choice or a bet under 100 ms, left out of the scores.
- Lower is better
- Rounds Playedtrials
- Rounds played: 9 in each block unless the block ended early.
- Informational
- Blocks Completedcount
- Blocks finished, with every round played or ended early.
- Informational
- Blocks Plannedcount
- Blocks set for the session: 4 to 8, standard 6.
- Informational
- Points Wonpoints
- Final points of the block drawn at the end.
- Informational
Use and evidence
66 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, down 4% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 232 of 395 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 16 |
| 2024 | 14 |
| 2023 | 10 |
| 2022 | 17 |
| 2021 | 9 |
| 2020 | 11 |
| 2019 | 11 |
| 2018 | 12 |
| 2017 | 17 |
| 2016 | 18 |
| 2015 | 18 |
| 2014 | 14 |
| 2013 | 7 |
| 2012 | 6 |
| 2011 | 11 |
| 2010 | 1 |
| 2009 | 5 |
| 2008 | 4 |
| 2007 | 2 |
| 2006 | 3 |
| 2005 | 1 |
| 2004 | 1 |
| 2003 | 1 |
| 2002 | 0 |
| 2001 | 0 |
| 2000 | 0 |
Use grade D
30 to 99 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade C
At least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 2
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 12
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 24
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Rounds
- 10 tiles, blue with a circle and orange with a triangle, with a star behind one tile, every tile equally likely. Each block has one round for each count of blue tiles from 9 to 1, in an order drawn from the session's seed.
- Choice
- Click or tap the color you think hides the star, then one of 5 bets: 10%, 30%, 50%, 70% or 90% of the points held, rounded down to whole points. All bets are offered at once, with no time limit.
- Outcome
- The star is shown for 2,000 ms and the bet is won or lost. A 500 ms blank comes before each round.
- Blocks
- 6 blocks of 9 rounds (4 to 8 in the settings). Each block starts with 200 points and ends early when the points fall to 1.
- Practice
- One check question on winning a bet, with feedback, then 3 practice rounds with their own points.
- Points
- One block is drawn at the end, and its final points are the task's points. The study decides what points are worth, and the payment line says whether they are exchanged for money.
- Scores
- The quality of decisions: the share of rounds with unequal colors on which the larger color was chosen. Risk adjustment: 2a + b - c - 2d, from the mean percents bet at 9 to 1, 8 to 2, 7 to 3 and 6 to 4 after choosing the larger color. Rounds with a choice or a bet under 100 ms are left out as anticipations.
- Checks
- Choices below chance, or of one color on 90% of rounds without choosing the larger color more often than chance, invalidate. A short run, no risk adjustment score and a wrong check answer are flagged.
As Clark and colleagues (2008) describe the source task, its bets were offered one at a time, rising in some blocks and falling in others, on red and blue boxes with a token, and each block started with 100 points. This test offers its own five bets at once on its own tiles and points, so it reports no delay aversion score, and its values are not directly comparable with published ones. The scores support research and do not diagnose.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: the scored run's rounds. The color choice has a right answer on rounds with unequal colors, the larger color, with chance at 50%. Accuracy significantly below chance invalidates, and accuracy not above chance is flagged. Choosing one color on 90% of rounds invalidates when accuracy is not above chance, because the larger color is blue as often as orange. Color choices under 200 ms on at least half the rounds invalidate. Rounds with a choice or a bet under 100 ms are counted as anticipations and left out of the scores. A run short of its planned blocks, no risk adjustment score and a wrong check answer are flagged for review.
Why these rules
Accuracy significantly below chance (one-sided exact test, p < .05) cannot come from guessing; it means the response mapping was reversed or the task was not followed (Slick, Sherman and Iverson 1999 treat below-chance forced-choice performance as definite response bias). Chance-level accuracy can be a real result in impaired participants, so it is only flagged. One option on at least 90% of answered trials, when the correct options are balanced and accuracy is not above chance, means the answers did not depend on the items (the task counterpart of long-string responding in surveys; Curran 2016). Bets have no right answer, so they are not judged against chance. An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Blocks | 6 | 4 to 8 |
| Payment line | Hypothetical points (standard) | Hypothetical points (standard), The study pays for points |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Betting Choice Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Rogers RD, Everitt BJ, Baldacchino A, et al., 1999), with the standard settings (blocks: 6; payment line: Hypothetical points). The main score was quality of decisions (share of the rounds with unequal colors on which the larger color was chosen).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Rogers, R. D., Everitt, B. J., Baldacchino, A., Blackshaw, A. J., Swainson, R., Wynne, K., Baker, N. B., Hunter, J., Carthy, T., Booker, E., London, M., Deakin, J. F. W., Sahakian, B. J., & Robbins, T. W. (1999). Dissociable deficits in the decision-making cognition of chronic amphetamine abusers, opiate abusers, patients with focal damage to prefrontal cortex, and tryptophan-depleted normal volunteers: Evidence for monoaminergic mechanisms. Neuropsychopharmacology, 20(4), 322-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0893-133X(98)00091-8
- Clark, L., Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Aitken, M. R. F., Sahakian, B. J., & Robbins, T. W. (2008). Differential effects of insular and ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions on risky decision-making. Brain, 131(5), 1311-1322. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awn066The task's method and the risk adjustment score.
- Deakin, J., Aitken, M., Robbins, T., & Sahakian, B. J. (2004). Risk taking during decision-making in normal volunteers changes with age. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 10(4), 590-598. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617704104104Less risk taking and longer deliberation with age in 177 adults.
Source papers
- Clark, Bechara, Damasio, Aitken, Sahakian and Robbins (2008): 41 healthy adults chose the larger color on 90% to 92% of rounds, bet 43% to 62% of their points with rising and falling bet sequences, and took about 2.4 seconds to choose a color.Paradigm source, Adults
Questions
How long does the Betting Choice Task take?
About 7 to 9 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Quality of Decisions, Risk Adjustment, Deliberation Time, Risk Taking, Overall Bet, Bet at 9 to 1, Bet at 8 to 2, Bet at 7 to 3, Bet at 6 to 4, Mean Final Points, Blocks Ended Early, Check Correct, Anticipations, Rounds Played, Blocks Completed, Blocks Planned and Points Won. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Betting Choice Task used in research?
66 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, down 4% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 232 of 395 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade D). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Betting Choice Task have?
In the published research, 2 papers report its test-retest reliability and 24 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade C in the ConductCognition test census).
Which settings can a researcher change?
Blocks (4 to 8) and payment line (Hypothetical points (standard), The study pays for points). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.
Related tests