Decision Making
Cups Task
Also called: cups gambling task, risky choice cups task
Measure risk taking for gains and for losses with choices between a sure cup and a risky one at three levels of expected value, scored as the share of risky choices.
6-9 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
- 54
- Evidence grade
- C
- Registered clinical studies
- 3
What it measures
Measures risk taking for gains and for losses. On each round participants pick a cup from a side where every cup holds the same points or a side where one cup holds more and the others nothing, with the risky side's expected value below, equal to or above the sure side's. The main score is the share of risky choices.
Constructs
- Risk taking
- Sensitivity to expected value
- Gains and losses
- Decision making under risk
Research uses
- Decision making after brain injury
- Risk taking across development and aging
- Brain imaging of risky choice
- Within-study group comparison
How the paradigm works
The cups task measures risk taking for gains and for losses (Levin and Hart, 2003). Each round shows two sides with the same number of cups: 2, 3 or 5. On the sure side every cup holds 12 points. On the risky side one cup holds a larger amount and the others hold 0, so the chance of that cup is 1 in 2, 1 in 3 or 1 in 5. The participant picks one cup and sees what it held. In win rounds the points are added and in lose rounds they are taken away, in two parts whose order is drawn for each session, as in the computerized version (Levin, Weller, Pederson and Harshman, 2007). The risky amount's expected value is two thirds of, equal to or one and a half times the sure 12 points: 16, 24 or 36 points with 2 cups, 24, 36 or 54 with 3, and 40, 60 or 90 with 5, so every number of cups meets every level. These amounts were written for this test.
More about the paradigm
A check question on the risky side and two practice rounds, one of each kind, come first. Each part plays the 9 combinations three times in a seeded order, 54 rounds in all. The sure side is on the left, or on top on a narrow screen, on half the rounds, and the cup holding the risky amount is drawn before each choice. The participant starts with 1,200 points, enough that the lose rounds cannot take the total below 0. The study decides what the points are worth, and the payment line says whether they are exchanged for money.
The main score is the share of risky choices. The share in win and in lose rounds, the share at each level of expected value and the sensitivity to expected value (the risky share when the risky side is better on average minus when it is worse) are also given. Adults chose the risky side more often when it was better on average and were more sensitive to expected value than children (Levin and colleagues, 2007). Patients with ventromedial prefrontal damage made poorer risky choices for gains and for losses, and patients with amygdala damage for gains only (Weller, Levin, Shiv and Bechara, 2007). From age 5 to 85, risk taking for gains fell with age, while risk taking to avoid losses stayed about the same (Weller, Levin and Denburg, 2011). Scores support research and do not diagnose.
Scores
- Risky Choices%
- Share of rounds where the participant picked a cup on the risky side.
- Higher means more risk taking
- Risky Choices, Win Rounds%
- Share of risky choices in rounds where the cups hold points to win.
- Higher means more risk taking for gains
- Risky Choices, Lose Rounds%
- Share of risky choices in rounds where the cups hold points to lose.
- Higher means more risk taking to avoid losses
- Sensitivity to Expected Valuescore
- Share of risky choices when the risky side's expected value is above the sure side's minus when it is below, over both kinds of round, from -1 to 1.
- Higher means choices follow expected value more closely
- Sensitivity, Win Roundsscore
- The same difference in win rounds.
- Higher means choices follow expected value more closely
- Sensitivity, Lose Roundsscore
- The same difference in lose rounds.
- Higher means choices follow expected value more closely
- Win Rounds, Risky Side Better%
- Share of risky choices in win rounds where the risky side wins more on average.
- Higher means more risk taking
- Win Rounds, Equal%
- Share of risky choices in win rounds where both sides win the same on average.
- Higher means more risk taking
- Win Rounds, Risky Side Worse%
- Share of risky choices in win rounds where the risky side wins less on average.
- Higher means more risk taking
- Lose Rounds, Risky Side Better%
- Share of risky choices in lose rounds where the risky side loses less on average.
- Higher means more risk taking
- Lose Rounds, Equal%
- Share of risky choices in lose rounds where both sides lose the same on average.
- Higher means more risk taking
- Lose Rounds, Risky Side Worse%
- Share of risky choices in lose rounds where the risky side loses more on average.
- Higher means more risk taking
- Lose Minus Win Roundsscore
- Share of risky choices in lose rounds minus in win rounds, from -1 to 1.
- Positive means more risk taking to avoid losses than to gain
- Choice Timems
- Median time from the cups appearing to the choice.
- Informational
- Net Pointspoints
- Points won minus points lost in the scored rounds.
- Informational
- Same Screen Side%
- Share of choices on the screen side picked more often. The sure side moves between the two sides.
- Near 1 suggests the sides were not read
- Early Clickscount
- Clicks under 100 ms after the cups appeared, not taken as choices.
- Lower is better
- Choicescount
- Scored rounds played.
- Informational
- Check Correctflag
- 1 when the check question on the risky side was answered correctly, 0 when not.
- 1 supports interpretation
Use and evidence
54 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 54% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 247 of 395 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 12 |
| 2024 | 7 |
| 2023 | 9 |
| 2022 | 12 |
| 2021 | 14 |
| 2020 | 6 |
| 2019 | 8 |
| 2018 | 9 |
| 2017 | 8 |
| 2016 | 4 |
| 2015 | 5 |
| 2014 | 4 |
| 2013 | 3 |
| 2012 | 6 |
| 2011 | 7 |
| 2010 | 2 |
| 2009 | 3 |
| 2008 | 2 |
| 2007 | 4 |
| 2006 | 0 |
| 2005 | 1 |
| 2004 | 2 |
| 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
- 1
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 5
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 3
Note on the counts: includes other tasks with cups, such as hiding games with children and animals.
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 2 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Cups
- 2, 3 or 5 cups on each side. On the sure side every cup holds 12 points; on the risky side one cup holds the amount and the others hold 0.
- Amounts
- Written for this test: 16, 24 or 36 points with 2 cups, 24, 36 or 54 with 3, and 40, 60 or 90 with 5, an expected value of two thirds of, equal to or one and a half times the sure 12.
- Rounds
- Win rounds add the points and lose rounds take them away, in two parts, in an order drawn for each session (standard) or fixed by the study.
- Order
- Each part plays the 9 combinations 3 times (standard, 2 to 4), 27 rounds per part, in cycles from the session's seed. The sure side comes first on half the rounds.
- Choice
- By click, tap or keyboard, with no time limit. The chosen cup shows its points for 1,500 ms. Clicks under 100 ms are not taken as choices.
- Practice
- A check question on the risky side, then one win round and one lose round with 4 cups.
- Points
- The participant starts with 1,200 points, enough that the lose rounds cannot take the total below 0.
The sources paid quarters or dollars, and their amounts tied the expected value to the number of cups. This test pays points of its own and crosses every number of cups with every level of expected value, so its shares are not on the sources' scale. 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: cups_task_trial from the scored run, one per round. Neither side is correct, so accuracy is not judged against chance, and choosing the sure or the risky side throughout is accepted. A run with fewer than half its planned rounds is invalid and any other shortfall is flagged. Choices under 200 ms on at least half the rounds invalidate. Picking cups on one side of the screen on at least 90% of at least 12 rounds, and a wrong answer to the check question, are flagged.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. Preferring the sure or the risky side throughout is a stable attitude to risk, so repeated choices of one option are not checked. The sure side changes places from round to round, so picking one place on the screen almost every time means the sides were not read. 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.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Rounds of each combination | 3 | 2 to 4 |
| Order of the two parts | Drawn for each session (standard) | Drawn for each session (standard), Win rounds first, Lose rounds first |
| 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.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Cups Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Levin and Hart, 2003), with the standard settings (rounds of each combination: 3; order of the two parts: Drawn for each session; payment line: Hypothetical points). The main score was risky choices (share of rounds where the participant picked a cup on the risky side).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Levin, I. P., & Hart, S. S. (2003). Risk preferences in young children: Early evidence of individual differences in reaction to potential gains and losses. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16(5), 397-413. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.453
- Levin, I. P., Weller, J. A., Pederson, A. A., & Harshman, L. A. (2007). Age-related differences in adaptive decision making: Sensitivity to expected value in risky choice. Judgment and Decision Making, 2(4), 225-233. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500000553The computerized version, and risky choices by expected value in children and their parents.
- Weller, J. A., Levin, I. P., Shiv, B., & Bechara, A. (2007). Neural correlates of adaptive decision making for risky gains and losses. Psychological Science, 18(11), 958-964. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02009.xPoorer choices after ventromedial prefrontal damage for gains and losses, and after amygdala damage for gains only.
- Weller, J. A., Levin, I. P., & Denburg, N. L. (2011). Trajectory of risky decision making for potential gains and losses from ages 5 to 85. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24(4), 331-344. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.690Risk taking for gains and for losses from age 5 to 85.
- Xue, G., Lu, Z., Levin, I. P., Weller, J. A., Li, X., & Bechara, A. (2009). Functional dissociations of risk and reward processing in the medial prefrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 19(5), 1019-1027. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhn147A version for brain imaging with gain and loss rounds.
Source papers
- Levin and Hart (2003): the task. Levin et al. (2007): risky choices by expected value in children and parents. Weller et al. (2007): ventromedial prefrontal and amygdala lesions. Weller, Levin and Denburg (2011): ages 5 to 85.Paradigm source, Children and adults
Questions
How long does the Cups Task take?
About 6 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?
Risky Choices, Risky Choices, Win Rounds, Risky Choices, Lose Rounds, Sensitivity to Expected Value, Sensitivity, Win Rounds, Sensitivity, Lose Rounds, Win Rounds, Risky Side Better, Win Rounds, Equal, Win Rounds, Risky Side Worse, Lose Rounds, Risky Side Better, Lose Rounds, Equal, Lose Rounds, Risky Side Worse, Lose Minus Win Rounds, Choice Time, Net Points, Same Screen Side, Early Clicks, Choices and Check Correct. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Cups Task used in research?
54 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 54% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 247 of 395 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade D). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 2 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Cups Task have?
In the published research, 1 paper reports its test-retest reliability and 3 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade C in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Rounds of each combination (2 to 4), order of the two parts (Drawn for each session (standard), Win rounds first, Lose rounds first) 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.