心理学报 ›› 2025, Vol. 57 ›› Issue (1): 100-124.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.0100 cstr: 32110.14.2025.0100
收稿日期:
2023-11-17
发布日期:
2024-11-20
出版日期:
2025-01-25
通讯作者:
何贵兵, E-mail: gbhe@zju.edu.cn基金资助:
LU Jiaqi1,2, LI Yusi1, HE Guibing1()
Received:
2023-11-17
Online:
2024-11-20
Published:
2025-01-25
摘要:
本研究采用三水平元分析定量估计双相患者与健康个体的风险决策偏好差异, 并检验该差异是否受到样本特征和测量特征的调节。基于71篇文献和176个效应量的元分析发现, 双相患者比健康个体更偏好风险寻求(Hedges' g = 0.301), 且这一偏好在风险态度量表(Hedges' g = 0.624)、行为实验任务(Hedges' g = 0.252)和日常风险行为(Hedges' g = 0.312)中都稳定存在。同时, 该差异还受到年龄(β = 0.009)和心境阶段的调节, 其中不论心境阶段如何, 双相患者均比健康个体更偏好风险寻求(缓解期: Hedges' g = 0.245; <轻>躁狂期: Hedges' g = 0.604; 重性抑郁期: Hedges' g = 0.417)。此外, 在行为实验任务中, 该差异受到年龄(β = 0.012)和地区的调节。特别是欧洲(Hedges' g = 0.419)和南美洲(Hedges' g = 0.420)的患者, 以及在爱荷华赌博任务(Hedges' g = 0.396)和剑桥赌博任务(Hedges' g = 0.220)中的患者, 均比健康个体更偏好风险寻求; 而在日常态度和行为中, 该差异仅受到心境阶段的调节, <轻>躁狂期患者(Hedges' g = 0.747)比健康个体更偏好风险寻求。本研究首次通过多种风险决策偏好测量类型探讨双相障碍与风险决策的关系, 得出了较稳定的结果, 并提出未来研究应充分考虑心境阶段、任务类型等因素的影响, 深入挖掘双相障碍影响风险决策的心理机制, 为双相障碍的临床管理和心理教育提供参考。
中图分类号:
陆嘉琦, 李雨斯, 何贵兵. (2025). 双相障碍患者的风险决策偏好:来自三水平元分析的证据. 心理学报, 57(1), 100-124.
LU Jiaqi, LI Yusi, HE Guibing. (2025). Risky decision-making in bipolar disorder: Evidence from a three-level meta-analysis. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(1), 100-124.
调节变量 | No. of ESs | QE (df) | F (df1, df2) | Hedges' g/β | SE | 95% CI | t | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
人口学变量 | ||||||||
a. 年龄 | 157 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
截距 | - | QE (155) = 547.46, p < 0.001 | F (1, 155) = 5.20, p = 0.024 | 0.266 | 0.038 | [0.190, 0.341] | 6.96 | < 0.001 |
年龄 | - | 0.009 | 0.004 | [0.001, 0.017] | 2.28 | 0.024 | ||
b. 性别比 | 147 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
截距 | - | QE (145) = 534.21, p < 0.001 | F (1, 145) = 0.00, p = 0.955 | 0.286 | 0.040 | [0.207, 0.365] | 7.18 | < 0.001 |
性别比 | - | -0.016 | 0.277 | [-0.562, 0.531] | -0.06 | 0.955 | ||
c. 受教育程度 | 77 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
截距 | - | QE (75) = 278.00, p < 0.001 | F (1, 75) = 0.24, p = 0.628 | 0.265 | 0.069 | [0.127, 0.402] | 3.83 | < 0.001 |
受教育年限 | - | 0.016 | 0.033 | [-0.049, 0.081] | 0.49 | 0.628 | ||
d. 地区 | 174 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
欧洲 EU | 72 | QE (170) = 632.91, p < 0.001 | F (3, 170) = 1.45, p = 0.231 | 0.333 | 0.062 | [0.211, 0.455] | 5.39 | < 0.001 |
北美洲 NA | 56 | 0.189 | 0.068 | [0.054, 0.325] | 2.77 | 0.006 | ||
南美洲 SA | 27 | 0.415 | 0.105 | [0.207, 0.623] | 3.94 | < 0.001 | ||
亚洲 ASIA | 19 | 0.220 | 0.128 | [-0.032, 0.472] | 1.72 | 0.087 | ||
EU vs. NA | - | -0.144 | 0.092 | [-0.326, 0.039] | -1.56 | 0.121 | ||
EU vs. SA | - | 0.082 | 0.122 | [-0.159, 0.323] | 0.12 | 0.503 | ||
EU vs. ASIA | - | -0.113 | 0.142 | [-0.393, 0.167] | -0.80 | 0.425 | ||
NA vs. SA | - | 0.226 | 0.126 | [-0.023, 0.474] | 1.80 | 0.074 | ||
NA vs. ASIA | - | 0.030 | 0.145 | [-0.256, 0.316] | 0.21 | 0.836 | ||
SA vs. ASIA | - | -0.196 | 0.166 | [-0.522, 0.131] | -1.18 | 0.239 | ||
疾病特征 | ||||||||
a. 心境阶段 | 77 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
缓解期E | 64 | QE (74) = 170.48, p < 0.001 | F (2, 74) = 3.52, p = 0.035 | 0.245 | 0.063 | [0.120, 0.369] | 3.91 | < 0.001 |
<轻>躁狂期M | 9 | 0.604 | 0.129 | [0.347, 0.862] | 4.68 | < 0.001 | ||
抑郁期D | 4 | 0.417 | 0.190 | [0.038, 0.796] | 2.19 | 0.032 | ||
E vs. M | - | 0.360 | 0.137 | [0.087, 0.632] | 2.63 | 0.010 | ||
E vs. D | - | 0.172 | 0.194 | [-0.214, 0.558] | 0.89 | 0.377 | ||
M vs. D | - | -0.187 | 0.212 | [-0.609, 0.234] | -0.89 | 0.379 | ||
测量特征 | ||||||||
a. 风险偏好测量类型 | 176 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
风险态度量表A | 13 | QE (173) = 640.51, p < 0.001 | F (2, 173) = 2.71, p = 0.070 | 0.624 | 0.151 | [0.325, 0.923] | 4.12 | < 0.001 |
日常风险行为B | 75 | 0.312 | 0.067 | [0.179, 0.445] | 4.62 | < 0.001 | ||
行为实验任务T | 88 | 0.252 | 0.053 | [0.148, 0.356] | 4.78 | < 0.001 | ||
A vs. B | - | -0.371 | 0.160 | [-0.688, -0.055] | -2.31 | 0.022 | ||
A vs. T | - | -0.312 | 0.166 | [-0.639, 0.015] | -1.88 | 0.062 | ||
B vs. T | - | -0.059 | 0.085 | [-0.226, 0.108] | -0.70 | 0.484 | ||
b. 任务类型 | 88 | |||||||
IGT | 41 | QE (84) = 255.07, p < 0.001 | F (3, 84) = 2.15, p = 0.100 | 0.396 | 0.084 | [0.229, 0.563] | 4.71 | < 0.001 |
BART | 10 | 0.159 | 0.151 | [-0.107, 0.580] | 1.37 | 0.294 | ||
CGT | 26 | 0.220 | 0.109 | [0.003, 0.438] | 2.02 | 0.047 | ||
RC tasks | 11 | -0.025 | 0.158 | [-0.340, 0.290] | -0.16 | 0.875 | ||
IGT vs. BART | - | -0.237 | 0.173 | [-0.580, 0.107] | -1.37 | 00.174 | ||
IGT vs. CGT | - | -0.176 | 0.138 | [-0.450, 0.098] | -1.27 | 0.206 | ||
IGT vs. RC tasks | - | -0.421 | 0.178 | [-0.775, -0.067] | -2.37 | 0.020 | ||
BART vs. CGT | - | 0.061 | 0.186 | [-0.309, 0.431] | 0.33 | 0.744 | ||
BART vs. RC tasks | - | -0.184 | 0.215 | [-0.611, 0.242] | -0.86 | 0.393 | ||
CGT vs. RC tasks | - | -0.245 | 0.192 | [-0.628, 0.137] | -1.28 | 0.206 | ||
c. 任务明确性 | 88 | |||||||
显性任务 | 37 | QE (86) = 267.98, p < 0.001 | F (1, 86) = 2.85, p = 0.095 | 0.145 | 0.092 | [-0.038, 0.328] | 1.57 | 0.120 |
隐性任务 | 51 | 0.343 | 0.075 | [0.194, 0.493] | 4.57 | < 0.001 | ||
显性 vs. 隐性 | - | 0.199 | 0.118 | [-0.035, 0.433] | 1.69 | 0.095 | ||
d. 行为领域 | 85 | |||||||
健康 | 71 | QE (82) = 321.66, p < 0.001 | F (2, 82) = 2.88, p = 0.062 | 0.308 | 0.067 | [0.176, 0.441] | 4.64 | < 0.001 |
经济 | 6 | 0.331 | 0.155 | [0.022, 0.640] | 2.13 | 0.036 | ||
总体态度 | 8 | 0.733 | 0.165 | [0.404, 1.061] | 4.44 | < 0.001 | ||
健康 vs. 经济 | - | 0.023 | 0.153 | [-0.282, 0.327] | 0.15 | 0.883 | ||
健康 vs. 总体态度 | - | 0.424 | 0.177 | [0.072, 0.776] | 2.40 | 0.019 | ||
经济 vs. 总体态度 | - | 0.402 | 0.224 | [-0.043, 0.847] | 1.80 | 0.076 |
表1 双相情感障碍与风险决策关系的调节效应检验结果表
调节变量 | No. of ESs | QE (df) | F (df1, df2) | Hedges' g/β | SE | 95% CI | t | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
人口学变量 | ||||||||
a. 年龄 | 157 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
截距 | - | QE (155) = 547.46, p < 0.001 | F (1, 155) = 5.20, p = 0.024 | 0.266 | 0.038 | [0.190, 0.341] | 6.96 | < 0.001 |
年龄 | - | 0.009 | 0.004 | [0.001, 0.017] | 2.28 | 0.024 | ||
b. 性别比 | 147 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
截距 | - | QE (145) = 534.21, p < 0.001 | F (1, 145) = 0.00, p = 0.955 | 0.286 | 0.040 | [0.207, 0.365] | 7.18 | < 0.001 |
性别比 | - | -0.016 | 0.277 | [-0.562, 0.531] | -0.06 | 0.955 | ||
c. 受教育程度 | 77 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
截距 | - | QE (75) = 278.00, p < 0.001 | F (1, 75) = 0.24, p = 0.628 | 0.265 | 0.069 | [0.127, 0.402] | 3.83 | < 0.001 |
受教育年限 | - | 0.016 | 0.033 | [-0.049, 0.081] | 0.49 | 0.628 | ||
d. 地区 | 174 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
欧洲 EU | 72 | QE (170) = 632.91, p < 0.001 | F (3, 170) = 1.45, p = 0.231 | 0.333 | 0.062 | [0.211, 0.455] | 5.39 | < 0.001 |
北美洲 NA | 56 | 0.189 | 0.068 | [0.054, 0.325] | 2.77 | 0.006 | ||
南美洲 SA | 27 | 0.415 | 0.105 | [0.207, 0.623] | 3.94 | < 0.001 | ||
亚洲 ASIA | 19 | 0.220 | 0.128 | [-0.032, 0.472] | 1.72 | 0.087 | ||
EU vs. NA | - | -0.144 | 0.092 | [-0.326, 0.039] | -1.56 | 0.121 | ||
EU vs. SA | - | 0.082 | 0.122 | [-0.159, 0.323] | 0.12 | 0.503 | ||
EU vs. ASIA | - | -0.113 | 0.142 | [-0.393, 0.167] | -0.80 | 0.425 | ||
NA vs. SA | - | 0.226 | 0.126 | [-0.023, 0.474] | 1.80 | 0.074 | ||
NA vs. ASIA | - | 0.030 | 0.145 | [-0.256, 0.316] | 0.21 | 0.836 | ||
SA vs. ASIA | - | -0.196 | 0.166 | [-0.522, 0.131] | -1.18 | 0.239 | ||
疾病特征 | ||||||||
a. 心境阶段 | 77 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
缓解期E | 64 | QE (74) = 170.48, p < 0.001 | F (2, 74) = 3.52, p = 0.035 | 0.245 | 0.063 | [0.120, 0.369] | 3.91 | < 0.001 |
<轻>躁狂期M | 9 | 0.604 | 0.129 | [0.347, 0.862] | 4.68 | < 0.001 | ||
抑郁期D | 4 | 0.417 | 0.190 | [0.038, 0.796] | 2.19 | 0.032 | ||
E vs. M | - | 0.360 | 0.137 | [0.087, 0.632] | 2.63 | 0.010 | ||
E vs. D | - | 0.172 | 0.194 | [-0.214, 0.558] | 0.89 | 0.377 | ||
M vs. D | - | -0.187 | 0.212 | [-0.609, 0.234] | -0.89 | 0.379 | ||
测量特征 | ||||||||
a. 风险偏好测量类型 | 176 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
风险态度量表A | 13 | QE (173) = 640.51, p < 0.001 | F (2, 173) = 2.71, p = 0.070 | 0.624 | 0.151 | [0.325, 0.923] | 4.12 | < 0.001 |
日常风险行为B | 75 | 0.312 | 0.067 | [0.179, 0.445] | 4.62 | < 0.001 | ||
行为实验任务T | 88 | 0.252 | 0.053 | [0.148, 0.356] | 4.78 | < 0.001 | ||
A vs. B | - | -0.371 | 0.160 | [-0.688, -0.055] | -2.31 | 0.022 | ||
A vs. T | - | -0.312 | 0.166 | [-0.639, 0.015] | -1.88 | 0.062 | ||
B vs. T | - | -0.059 | 0.085 | [-0.226, 0.108] | -0.70 | 0.484 | ||
b. 任务类型 | 88 | |||||||
IGT | 41 | QE (84) = 255.07, p < 0.001 | F (3, 84) = 2.15, p = 0.100 | 0.396 | 0.084 | [0.229, 0.563] | 4.71 | < 0.001 |
BART | 10 | 0.159 | 0.151 | [-0.107, 0.580] | 1.37 | 0.294 | ||
CGT | 26 | 0.220 | 0.109 | [0.003, 0.438] | 2.02 | 0.047 | ||
RC tasks | 11 | -0.025 | 0.158 | [-0.340, 0.290] | -0.16 | 0.875 | ||
IGT vs. BART | - | -0.237 | 0.173 | [-0.580, 0.107] | -1.37 | 00.174 | ||
IGT vs. CGT | - | -0.176 | 0.138 | [-0.450, 0.098] | -1.27 | 0.206 | ||
IGT vs. RC tasks | - | -0.421 | 0.178 | [-0.775, -0.067] | -2.37 | 0.020 | ||
BART vs. CGT | - | 0.061 | 0.186 | [-0.309, 0.431] | 0.33 | 0.744 | ||
BART vs. RC tasks | - | -0.184 | 0.215 | [-0.611, 0.242] | -0.86 | 0.393 | ||
CGT vs. RC tasks | - | -0.245 | 0.192 | [-0.628, 0.137] | -1.28 | 0.206 | ||
c. 任务明确性 | 88 | |||||||
显性任务 | 37 | QE (86) = 267.98, p < 0.001 | F (1, 86) = 2.85, p = 0.095 | 0.145 | 0.092 | [-0.038, 0.328] | 1.57 | 0.120 |
隐性任务 | 51 | 0.343 | 0.075 | [0.194, 0.493] | 4.57 | < 0.001 | ||
显性 vs. 隐性 | - | 0.199 | 0.118 | [-0.035, 0.433] | 1.69 | 0.095 | ||
d. 行为领域 | 85 | |||||||
健康 | 71 | QE (82) = 321.66, p < 0.001 | F (2, 82) = 2.88, p = 0.062 | 0.308 | 0.067 | [0.176, 0.441] | 4.64 | < 0.001 |
经济 | 6 | 0.331 | 0.155 | [0.022, 0.640] | 2.13 | 0.036 | ||
总体态度 | 8 | 0.733 | 0.165 | [0.404, 1.061] | 4.44 | < 0.001 | ||
健康 vs. 经济 | - | 0.023 | 0.153 | [-0.282, 0.327] | 0.15 | 0.883 | ||
健康 vs. 总体态度 | - | 0.424 | 0.177 | [0.072, 0.776] | 2.40 | 0.019 | ||
经济 vs. 总体态度 | - | 0.402 | 0.224 | [-0.043, 0.847] | 1.80 | 0.076 |
调节变量 | β (SE) | 95% CI | t | p |
---|---|---|---|---|
截距 | 0.199 (0.064) | [0.070, 0.328] | 3.09 | 0.003 |
年龄 | 0.015 (0.009) | [−0.004, 0.033] | 1.59 | 0.117 |
心境阶段:缓解期 (vs. <轻>躁狂期) | 0.397 (0.142) | [0.112, 0.681] | 2.78 | 0.007 |
心境阶段:缓解期 (vs.抑郁期) | 0.149 (0.205) | [−0.261, 0.559] | 0.73 | 0.469 |
QE test | QE (65) = 150.83, p < 0.001 | |||
Omnibus test | F (3, 65) = 3.36, p = 0.024 | |||
Number of ESs | 69 |
表2 多重调节变量回归结果表_总体模型
调节变量 | β (SE) | 95% CI | t | p |
---|---|---|---|---|
截距 | 0.199 (0.064) | [0.070, 0.328] | 3.09 | 0.003 |
年龄 | 0.015 (0.009) | [−0.004, 0.033] | 1.59 | 0.117 |
心境阶段:缓解期 (vs. <轻>躁狂期) | 0.397 (0.142) | [0.112, 0.681] | 2.78 | 0.007 |
心境阶段:缓解期 (vs.抑郁期) | 0.149 (0.205) | [−0.261, 0.559] | 0.73 | 0.469 |
QE test | QE (65) = 150.83, p < 0.001 | |||
Omnibus test | F (3, 65) = 3.36, p = 0.024 | |||
Number of ESs | 69 |
调节变量 | No. of ESs | QE (df) | F (df1, df2) | Hedges' g/β | SE | 95% CI | t | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
人口学变量 | ||||||||
a. 年龄 | 76 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
截距 | - | QE (74) = 192.16, p < 0.001 | F (1, 74) = 6.38, p = 0.014 | 0.232 | 0.050 | [0.132, 0.333] | 4.63 | < 0.001 |
年龄 | - | 0.012 | 0.005 | [0.003, 0.022] | 2.53 | 0.014 | ||
b. 性别比 | 69 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
截距 | - | QE (67) = 197.69, p < 0.001 | F (1, 67) = 0.20, p = 0.657 | 0.253 | 0.059 | [0.135, 0.371] | 4.28 | < 0.001 |
性别比 | - | -0.167 | 0.375 | [-0.916, 0.581] | -0.45 | 0.657 | ||
c. 受教育年限 | 48 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
截距 | - | QE (46) = 130.07, p < 0.001 | F (1, 46) = 0.20, p = 0.661 | 0.246 | 0.091 | [0.063, 0.428] | 2.71 | 0.010 |
受教育年限 | - | 0.019 | 0.043 | [-0.068, 0.106] | 0.44 | 0.661 | ||
d. 地区 | 88 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
欧洲 EU | 26 | QE (84) = 247.44, p < 0.001 | F (3, 84) = 3.21, p = 0.027 | 0.419 | 0.097 | [0.227, 0.611] | 4.34 | < 0.001 |
北美洲 NA | 31 | 0.042 | 0.095 | [-0.147, 0.230] | 0.44 | 0.660 | ||
南美洲 SA | 23 | 0.420 | 0.128 | [0.165, 0.676] | 3.28 | 0.002 | ||
亚洲 ASIA | 8 | 0.216 | 0.165 | [-0.112, 0.545] | 1.31 | 0.194 | ||
EU vs. NA | - | -0.377 | 0.135 | [-0.646, -0.108] | -2.79 | 0.007 | ||
EU vs. SA | - | 0.002 | 0.161 | [-0.318, 0.321] | 0.01 | 0.992 | ||
EU vs. ASIA | - | -0.203 | 0.191 | [-0.583, 0.178] | -1.06 | 0.293 | ||
NA vs. SA | - | 0.379 | 0.160 | [0.061, 0.696] | 2.37 | 0.020 | ||
NA vs. ASIA | - | 0.174 | 0.190 | [-0.204, 0.553] | 0.92 | 0.363 | ||
SA vs. ASIA | - | -0.204 | 0.209 | [-0.620, 0.212] | -0.98 | 0.332 | ||
疾病特征 | ||||||||
a. 心境阶段 | 48 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
缓解期 E | 38 | QE (45) = 125.61, p < 0.001 | F (2, 45) = 1.37, p = 0.265 | 0.291 | 0.078 | [0.134, 0.449] | 3.72 | < 0.001 |
<轻>躁狂期 M | 7 | 0.553 | 0.155 | [0.240, 0.865] | 3.56 | < 0.001 | ||
抑郁期 D | 3 | 0.479 | 0.230 | [0.015, 0.943] | 2.08 | 0.043 | ||
E vs. M | - | 0.261 | 0.165 | [-0.071, 0.593] | 1.58 | 0.120 | ||
E vs. D | - | 0.188 | 0.235 | [-0.286, 0.661] | 0.80 | 0.430 | ||
M vs. D | - | -0.074 | 0.285 | [-0.592, 0.445] | -0.29 | 0.777 |
表3 双相障碍与风险决策行为实验任务关系的调节效应检验结果表
调节变量 | No. of ESs | QE (df) | F (df1, df2) | Hedges' g/β | SE | 95% CI | t | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
人口学变量 | ||||||||
a. 年龄 | 76 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
截距 | - | QE (74) = 192.16, p < 0.001 | F (1, 74) = 6.38, p = 0.014 | 0.232 | 0.050 | [0.132, 0.333] | 4.63 | < 0.001 |
年龄 | - | 0.012 | 0.005 | [0.003, 0.022] | 2.53 | 0.014 | ||
b. 性别比 | 69 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
截距 | - | QE (67) = 197.69, p < 0.001 | F (1, 67) = 0.20, p = 0.657 | 0.253 | 0.059 | [0.135, 0.371] | 4.28 | < 0.001 |
性别比 | - | -0.167 | 0.375 | [-0.916, 0.581] | -0.45 | 0.657 | ||
c. 受教育年限 | 48 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
截距 | - | QE (46) = 130.07, p < 0.001 | F (1, 46) = 0.20, p = 0.661 | 0.246 | 0.091 | [0.063, 0.428] | 2.71 | 0.010 |
受教育年限 | - | 0.019 | 0.043 | [-0.068, 0.106] | 0.44 | 0.661 | ||
d. 地区 | 88 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
欧洲 EU | 26 | QE (84) = 247.44, p < 0.001 | F (3, 84) = 3.21, p = 0.027 | 0.419 | 0.097 | [0.227, 0.611] | 4.34 | < 0.001 |
北美洲 NA | 31 | 0.042 | 0.095 | [-0.147, 0.230] | 0.44 | 0.660 | ||
南美洲 SA | 23 | 0.420 | 0.128 | [0.165, 0.676] | 3.28 | 0.002 | ||
亚洲 ASIA | 8 | 0.216 | 0.165 | [-0.112, 0.545] | 1.31 | 0.194 | ||
EU vs. NA | - | -0.377 | 0.135 | [-0.646, -0.108] | -2.79 | 0.007 | ||
EU vs. SA | - | 0.002 | 0.161 | [-0.318, 0.321] | 0.01 | 0.992 | ||
EU vs. ASIA | - | -0.203 | 0.191 | [-0.583, 0.178] | -1.06 | 0.293 | ||
NA vs. SA | - | 0.379 | 0.160 | [0.061, 0.696] | 2.37 | 0.020 | ||
NA vs. ASIA | - | 0.174 | 0.190 | [-0.204, 0.553] | 0.92 | 0.363 | ||
SA vs. ASIA | - | -0.204 | 0.209 | [-0.620, 0.212] | -0.98 | 0.332 | ||
疾病特征 | ||||||||
a. 心境阶段 | 48 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
缓解期 E | 38 | QE (45) = 125.61, p < 0.001 | F (2, 45) = 1.37, p = 0.265 | 0.291 | 0.078 | [0.134, 0.449] | 3.72 | < 0.001 |
<轻>躁狂期 M | 7 | 0.553 | 0.155 | [0.240, 0.865] | 3.56 | < 0.001 | ||
抑郁期 D | 3 | 0.479 | 0.230 | [0.015, 0.943] | 2.08 | 0.043 | ||
E vs. M | - | 0.261 | 0.165 | [-0.071, 0.593] | 1.58 | 0.120 | ||
E vs. D | - | 0.188 | 0.235 | [-0.286, 0.661] | 0.80 | 0.430 | ||
M vs. D | - | -0.074 | 0.285 | [-0.592, 0.445] | -0.29 | 0.777 |
调节变量 | β (SE) | 95% CI | t | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
截距 | 0.375 (0.088) | [0.200, 0.550] | 4.27 | < 0.001 | |
年龄 | 0.007 (0.006) | [−0.005, 0.018] | 1.18 | 0.241 | |
地区: 欧洲 (vs. 北美洲) | −0.243 (0.139) | [−0.521, 0.034] | −1.75 | 0.085 | |
地区: 欧洲 (vs. 南美洲) | −0.157 (0.141) | [−0.438, 0.125] | −1.11 | 0.272 | |
地区: 欧洲 (vs. 亚洲) | −0.289 (0.180) | [−0.648, 0.071] | −1.60 | 0.114 | |
QE test | QE (71) = 178.41, p < 0.001 | ||||
Omnibus test | F (4, 71) = 2.65, p = 0.040 | ||||
Number of ESs | 76 |
表4 多重调节变量回归结果表_行为实验任务模型
调节变量 | β (SE) | 95% CI | t | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
截距 | 0.375 (0.088) | [0.200, 0.550] | 4.27 | < 0.001 | |
年龄 | 0.007 (0.006) | [−0.005, 0.018] | 1.18 | 0.241 | |
地区: 欧洲 (vs. 北美洲) | −0.243 (0.139) | [−0.521, 0.034] | −1.75 | 0.085 | |
地区: 欧洲 (vs. 南美洲) | −0.157 (0.141) | [−0.438, 0.125] | −1.11 | 0.272 | |
地区: 欧洲 (vs. 亚洲) | −0.289 (0.180) | [−0.648, 0.071] | −1.60 | 0.114 | |
QE test | QE (71) = 178.41, p < 0.001 | ||||
Omnibus test | F (4, 71) = 2.65, p = 0.040 | ||||
Number of ESs | 76 |
调节变量 | No. of ESs | QE (df) | F (df1, df2) | Hedges' g/β | SE | 95% CI | t | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
人口学变量 | ||||||||
a. 年龄 | 81 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
截距 | - | QE (79) = 308.59, p < 0.001 | F (1, 78) = 0.02, p = 0.900 | 0.300 | 0.060 | [0.181, 0.419] | 5.02 | < 0.001 |
年龄 | - | 0.001 | 0.007 | [-0.013, 0.014] | 0.13 | 0.900 | ||
b. 性别比 | 78 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
截距 | - | QE (76) = 319.23, p < 0.001 | F (1, 76) = 0.07, p = 0.797 | 0.332 | 0.055 | [0.222, 0.443] | 6.00 | < 0.001 |
性别比 | - | 0.113 | 0.438 | [-0.760, 0.986] | 0.26 | 0.797 | ||
c. 受教育年限 | 29 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
截距 | - | QE (27) = 90.64, p < 0.001 | F (1, 27) = 0.04, p = 0.835 | 0.309 | 0.122 | [0.060, 0.559] | 2.54 | 0.017 |
受教育年限 | - | -0.012 | 0.056 | [-0.127, 0.103] | -0.21 | 0.835 | ||
d. 地区 | 82 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
欧洲 EU | 46 | QE (79) = 320.49, p < 0.001 | F (3, 79) = 1.01, p = 0.367 | 0.264 | 0.079 | [0.107, 0.422] | 3.34 | 0.001 |
北美洲 NA | 25 | 0.425 | 0.103 | [0.220, 0.631] | 4.13 | < 0.001 | ||
亚洲 ASIA | 11 | 0.184 | 0.190 | [-0.194, 0.563] | 0.97 | 0.335 | ||
EU vs. NA | - | 0.161 | 0.130 | [-0.097, 0.420] | 1.24 | 0.218 | ||
EU vs. ASIA | - | -0.080 | 0.206 | [-0.490, 0.330] | -0.39 | 0.699 | ||
NA vs. ASIA | - | -0.241 | 0.216 | [-0.672, 0.189] | -1.12 | 0.268 | ||
疾病特征 | ||||||||
a. 心境阶段 | 28 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
缓解期 E | 26 | QE (26) =34.59, p = 0.121 | F (2, 26) = 6.66 p = 0.016 | 0.111 | 0.095 | [-0.084, 0.307] | 1.17 | 0.252 |
<轻>躁狂期 M | 2 | 0.747 | 0.236 | [0.263, 1.232] | 3.17 | 0.004 | ||
E vs. M | - | 0.636 | 0.246 | [0.130, 1.143] | 2.58 | 0.016 |
表5 双相障碍与风险决策日常风险态度和行为关系的调节效应检验结果表
调节变量 | No. of ESs | QE (df) | F (df1, df2) | Hedges' g/β | SE | 95% CI | t | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
人口学变量 | ||||||||
a. 年龄 | 81 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
截距 | - | QE (79) = 308.59, p < 0.001 | F (1, 78) = 0.02, p = 0.900 | 0.300 | 0.060 | [0.181, 0.419] | 5.02 | < 0.001 |
年龄 | - | 0.001 | 0.007 | [-0.013, 0.014] | 0.13 | 0.900 | ||
b. 性别比 | 78 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
截距 | - | QE (76) = 319.23, p < 0.001 | F (1, 76) = 0.07, p = 0.797 | 0.332 | 0.055 | [0.222, 0.443] | 6.00 | < 0.001 |
性别比 | - | 0.113 | 0.438 | [-0.760, 0.986] | 0.26 | 0.797 | ||
c. 受教育年限 | 29 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
截距 | - | QE (27) = 90.64, p < 0.001 | F (1, 27) = 0.04, p = 0.835 | 0.309 | 0.122 | [0.060, 0.559] | 2.54 | 0.017 |
受教育年限 | - | -0.012 | 0.056 | [-0.127, 0.103] | -0.21 | 0.835 | ||
d. 地区 | 82 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
欧洲 EU | 46 | QE (79) = 320.49, p < 0.001 | F (3, 79) = 1.01, p = 0.367 | 0.264 | 0.079 | [0.107, 0.422] | 3.34 | 0.001 |
北美洲 NA | 25 | 0.425 | 0.103 | [0.220, 0.631] | 4.13 | < 0.001 | ||
亚洲 ASIA | 11 | 0.184 | 0.190 | [-0.194, 0.563] | 0.97 | 0.335 | ||
EU vs. NA | - | 0.161 | 0.130 | [-0.097, 0.420] | 1.24 | 0.218 | ||
EU vs. ASIA | - | -0.080 | 0.206 | [-0.490, 0.330] | -0.39 | 0.699 | ||
NA vs. ASIA | - | -0.241 | 0.216 | [-0.672, 0.189] | -1.12 | 0.268 | ||
疾病特征 | ||||||||
a. 心境阶段 | 28 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
缓解期 E | 26 | QE (26) =34.59, p = 0.121 | F (2, 26) = 6.66 p = 0.016 | 0.111 | 0.095 | [-0.084, 0.307] | 1.17 | 0.252 |
<轻>躁狂期 M | 2 | 0.747 | 0.236 | [0.263, 1.232] | 3.17 | 0.004 | ||
E vs. M | - | 0.636 | 0.246 | [0.130, 1.143] | 2.58 | 0.016 |
类别 | 中文关键词 | 英文关键词 |
---|---|---|
双相障碍相关词汇 (类别1) | 双相障碍 或 躁狂 或 轻躁狂 | bipolar disorder OR mania OR hypomania |
风险决策相关词汇 (类别2) | 风险行为 或 风险决策 或 风险偏好 或 风险寻求 或 风险规避 或 风险倾向 或 风险态度 | risk behavior OR risky behavior OR risk behaviour OR risky behaviour OR risky choice OR risk taking OR risk seeking OR risk aversion OR risk propensity OR risk preference OR intolerance of uncertainty OR risky decision-making OR decision making under risk OR decision making under uncertainty |
常见风险决策范式名称 (类别3) | 博弈 或 赌博 或 爱荷华赌博任务 或 气球模拟风险任务 或 骰子抛掷游戏 或 骰子博弈测试 或 骰子风险决策任务 或 剑桥赌博任务 或 概率折扣 或 哥伦比亚卡牌任务 或 哥伦比亚纸牌任务 或 彩票任务 或 轮盘任务 或 领域特异性风险量表 或 框架效应 或 损失厌恶 | gambling OR gambling task OR risk game OR iowa gambling task OR balloon analogue risk task OR game of dice task OR cambridge gambling task OR probability discounting OR columbia card task OR lottery task OR wheel of fortune OR domain-specific risk-taking scale OR framing effect OR loss aversion |
常见日常风险行为名称 (类别4) | 吸烟 或 酒精使用 或 酒精依赖 或 物质使用 或 物质滥用 或 高危性行为 或 风险性行为 或 危险驾驶 或 不健康饮食 或 缺乏锻炼 | tobacco use OR alcohol use OR alcohol consumption OR drug use OR substance abuse OR risky sexual behavior OR risky sexual behaviour OR vehicle-related risk behavior OR vehicle-related risk behaviour OR unhealthy diet OR physical inactivity |
检索组合 | 类别1 AND 类别2 OR 类别 3 OR 类别4 |
附表1 中英文检索关键词
类别 | 中文关键词 | 英文关键词 |
---|---|---|
双相障碍相关词汇 (类别1) | 双相障碍 或 躁狂 或 轻躁狂 | bipolar disorder OR mania OR hypomania |
风险决策相关词汇 (类别2) | 风险行为 或 风险决策 或 风险偏好 或 风险寻求 或 风险规避 或 风险倾向 或 风险态度 | risk behavior OR risky behavior OR risk behaviour OR risky behaviour OR risky choice OR risk taking OR risk seeking OR risk aversion OR risk propensity OR risk preference OR intolerance of uncertainty OR risky decision-making OR decision making under risk OR decision making under uncertainty |
常见风险决策范式名称 (类别3) | 博弈 或 赌博 或 爱荷华赌博任务 或 气球模拟风险任务 或 骰子抛掷游戏 或 骰子博弈测试 或 骰子风险决策任务 或 剑桥赌博任务 或 概率折扣 或 哥伦比亚卡牌任务 或 哥伦比亚纸牌任务 或 彩票任务 或 轮盘任务 或 领域特异性风险量表 或 框架效应 或 损失厌恶 | gambling OR gambling task OR risk game OR iowa gambling task OR balloon analogue risk task OR game of dice task OR cambridge gambling task OR probability discounting OR columbia card task OR lottery task OR wheel of fortune OR domain-specific risk-taking scale OR framing effect OR loss aversion |
常见日常风险行为名称 (类别4) | 吸烟 或 酒精使用 或 酒精依赖 或 物质使用 或 物质滥用 或 高危性行为 或 风险性行为 或 危险驾驶 或 不健康饮食 或 缺乏锻炼 | tobacco use OR alcohol use OR alcohol consumption OR drug use OR substance abuse OR risky sexual behavior OR risky sexual behaviour OR vehicle-related risk behavior OR vehicle-related risk behaviour OR unhealthy diet OR physical inactivity |
检索组合 | 类别1 AND 类别2 OR 类别 3 OR 类别4 |
研究 | 分数 | S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S5 | S6 | S7 | S8 | S9 | S10 | S11 | S12 | S13 | S14 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ramírez-Martín et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Bodur et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Haatveit et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Lippard et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Martyn et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Saxena et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Ayidaga et al., | 7 | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Anderson et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Ji et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Le et al., | 5 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | N |
Obeid et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Simonetti et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Wong et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Gu et al., | 5 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | N |
Hart et al., | 7 | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Kollmann et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Salarvan et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
曾宝尔, | 5 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | N |
朱麒 等, | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Bauer et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Dickerson et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
魏格欣 等, | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Bauer et al., | 5 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | N |
Kollmann et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Vancampfort et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Williams et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Martin et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Naiberg et al., | 5 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | N |
Richard-Devantoy et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Saunders et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Scholz et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Urošević et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Marengo et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Ono et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Vancampfort et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Gomide Vasconcelos et al., | 5 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | N |
Martino & Strejilevich, | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Mason et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Pavlickova et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Reddy et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
van Enkhuizen et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Brambilla et al., | 7 | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Caletti et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
de Moraes et al., | 5 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | N |
Dickerson et al., | 7 | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Edge et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Fletcher et al., | 5 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | N |
Hıdıroğlu et al., | 5 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | N |
Levy, | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Linke et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Powers et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Ibanez et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Jogia et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Adida et al., | 7 | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Hariri et al. | 5 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | N |
Malloy-Diniz et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Martino et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Di Nicola et al., | 5 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | N |
Lamy, | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Holmes et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Malloy-Diniz et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Adida et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Frangou et al., | 5 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | N |
Yechiam et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Taylor Tavares et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Thomas et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Rubinsztein et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Goldberg et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Ernst et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Clark et al., | 5 | Y | Y | N | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Murphy et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
附表2 纳入元分析的原始研究质量评价表
研究 | 分数 | S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S5 | S6 | S7 | S8 | S9 | S10 | S11 | S12 | S13 | S14 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ramírez-Martín et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Bodur et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Haatveit et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Lippard et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Martyn et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Saxena et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Ayidaga et al., | 7 | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Anderson et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Ji et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Le et al., | 5 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | N |
Obeid et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Simonetti et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Wong et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Gu et al., | 5 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | N |
Hart et al., | 7 | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Kollmann et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Salarvan et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
曾宝尔, | 5 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | N |
朱麒 等, | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Bauer et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Dickerson et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
魏格欣 等, | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Bauer et al., | 5 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | N |
Kollmann et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Vancampfort et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Williams et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Martin et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Naiberg et al., | 5 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | N |
Richard-Devantoy et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Saunders et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Scholz et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Urošević et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Marengo et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Ono et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Vancampfort et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Gomide Vasconcelos et al., | 5 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | N |
Martino & Strejilevich, | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Mason et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Pavlickova et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Reddy et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
van Enkhuizen et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Brambilla et al., | 7 | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Caletti et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
de Moraes et al., | 5 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | N |
Dickerson et al., | 7 | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Edge et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Fletcher et al., | 5 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | N |
Hıdıroğlu et al., | 5 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | N |
Levy, | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Linke et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Powers et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Ibanez et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Jogia et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Adida et al., | 7 | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Hariri et al. | 5 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | N |
Malloy-Diniz et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Martino et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Di Nicola et al., | 5 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | N |
Lamy, | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Holmes et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Malloy-Diniz et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Adida et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Frangou et al., | 5 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | N |
Yechiam et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Taylor Tavares et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Thomas et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Rubinsztein et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Goldberg et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Ernst et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Clark et al., | 5 | Y | Y | N | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
Murphy et al., | 6 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | NA | NA | Y | NA | Y | NA | NA | Y |
类型 | 任务名称 | 关键指标 | 任务描述 |
---|---|---|---|
隐性任务 (经验性) | 爱荷华博弈任务 (Iowa Gambling Task, IGT; Bechara et al., | 净分数 | IGT任务以纸牌游戏的形式进行, 有4副卡牌(A、B、C、D)。每次翻牌都有即时奖赏(A/B卡牌为 |
气球模拟风险任务 (Balloon Analogue Risk Task, BART; Lejuez et al., | 未爆炸气球的平均充气次数 | BART任务将呈现1个已有一定大小的气球, 每次充气都会使气球膨胀并增加爆炸的风险, 但同时得到的奖赏也相应增加。个体可根据自己的意愿选择是否要继续充气:若选择停止充气将获得目前该气球积累的奖赏; 若选择继续充气但气球爆炸将损失该气球目前积累的奖赏。在该任务中, 风险偏好主要由个体在未爆炸气球中的平均充气次数来评估, 该次数越多则表明个体越偏好风险寻求。 | |
理性风险决策任务 (Rational Decision-Making Under Risk Task, RDMUR; Ibanez et al., | 选择翻开的 卡牌数量 | RDMUR任务中有10张卡牌, 其中9张为好牌, 可获得收益, 而1张为坏牌, 一旦抽出将损失该轮目前已积累的收益并结束该轮。个体将依次决定是否翻牌, 在没有抽到坏牌前, 其都可以自愿选择停止抽牌并获得该轮已积累的收益。其中, 坏牌将被固定放在第9张牌的位置(个体未知)。在该任务中, 个体选择翻牌的数量将作为其风险偏好的指标, 该数量越多则表明个体越偏好风险寻求。 | |
显性任务 (描述性) | 剑桥博弈任务 (Cambridge Gambling Task, CGT; Rogers et al., | 决策质量 赌注大小 | CGT任务中有10个盒子, 一些是红色的, 另一些是蓝色的, 其中在某个盒子中将藏有1个黄色的代币。个体需猜测哪一种颜色的盒子中藏有代币, 并为此下一定比例的赌注。红色与蓝色盒子的数量比将从1:9至9:1, 共9种情况。本研究选用2个风险偏好的指标:一是决策质量, 即个体选择盒子数量较多的那种颜色的比例, 该比例越高则表明个体越偏好风险规避; 二是赌注大小, 投注比率越高则表明个体越偏好风险寻求。此外, 部分任务还额外测量风险寻求, 即个体在盒子数量较多的那种颜色的平均投注比率。一般地, 个体在盒子数量较多的那种颜色投注比率越高, 表明个体越偏好风险规避。 |
风险选择任务 (Risky Choice Task, RC tasks) | 风险选项的 选择比例 | RC tasks任务主要是指个体在一系列低风险低收益和高风险高收益选项中权衡并做出选择, 其中风险高低将由概率大小变化来表示。该任务既有获益和损失的简单情境, 也存在获益和损失混合的复杂情境。风险选项的选择比例往往作为该任务的风险偏好评价指标, 该比例越高则表明个体越偏好风险寻求。 | |
幸运轮盘任务 (Wheel of Fortune, WOF; Mellers et al., | 风险选项的 选择比例 | WOF任务为Classic RCT任务变式之一, 其将概率以轮盘中颜色占比来表示, 个体则需要在2种不同分配方案的轮盘中做出选择。与Classic RCT任务一致, 个体选择高风险高收益的风险选项占比作为该任务的风险偏好指标, 该比例越高则表明个体越偏好风险寻求。 | |
概率折扣任务 (Probability Discounting Task, PD; Richards et al., | 折扣率k (log k) | PD任务为Classic RCT任务变式之一, 需要个体在确定的低收益选项和一定概率获得更高收益的风险选项中做出选择。在该任务中, 根据选择结果计算折扣率(有时会进行log转换), 折扣率越大则表明个体越偏好风险规避。 |
附表3 元分析纳入的风险决策行为任务概述
类型 | 任务名称 | 关键指标 | 任务描述 |
---|---|---|---|
隐性任务 (经验性) | 爱荷华博弈任务 (Iowa Gambling Task, IGT; Bechara et al., | 净分数 | IGT任务以纸牌游戏的形式进行, 有4副卡牌(A、B、C、D)。每次翻牌都有即时奖赏(A/B卡牌为 |
气球模拟风险任务 (Balloon Analogue Risk Task, BART; Lejuez et al., | 未爆炸气球的平均充气次数 | BART任务将呈现1个已有一定大小的气球, 每次充气都会使气球膨胀并增加爆炸的风险, 但同时得到的奖赏也相应增加。个体可根据自己的意愿选择是否要继续充气:若选择停止充气将获得目前该气球积累的奖赏; 若选择继续充气但气球爆炸将损失该气球目前积累的奖赏。在该任务中, 风险偏好主要由个体在未爆炸气球中的平均充气次数来评估, 该次数越多则表明个体越偏好风险寻求。 | |
理性风险决策任务 (Rational Decision-Making Under Risk Task, RDMUR; Ibanez et al., | 选择翻开的 卡牌数量 | RDMUR任务中有10张卡牌, 其中9张为好牌, 可获得收益, 而1张为坏牌, 一旦抽出将损失该轮目前已积累的收益并结束该轮。个体将依次决定是否翻牌, 在没有抽到坏牌前, 其都可以自愿选择停止抽牌并获得该轮已积累的收益。其中, 坏牌将被固定放在第9张牌的位置(个体未知)。在该任务中, 个体选择翻牌的数量将作为其风险偏好的指标, 该数量越多则表明个体越偏好风险寻求。 | |
显性任务 (描述性) | 剑桥博弈任务 (Cambridge Gambling Task, CGT; Rogers et al., | 决策质量 赌注大小 | CGT任务中有10个盒子, 一些是红色的, 另一些是蓝色的, 其中在某个盒子中将藏有1个黄色的代币。个体需猜测哪一种颜色的盒子中藏有代币, 并为此下一定比例的赌注。红色与蓝色盒子的数量比将从1:9至9:1, 共9种情况。本研究选用2个风险偏好的指标:一是决策质量, 即个体选择盒子数量较多的那种颜色的比例, 该比例越高则表明个体越偏好风险规避; 二是赌注大小, 投注比率越高则表明个体越偏好风险寻求。此外, 部分任务还额外测量风险寻求, 即个体在盒子数量较多的那种颜色的平均投注比率。一般地, 个体在盒子数量较多的那种颜色投注比率越高, 表明个体越偏好风险规避。 |
风险选择任务 (Risky Choice Task, RC tasks) | 风险选项的 选择比例 | RC tasks任务主要是指个体在一系列低风险低收益和高风险高收益选项中权衡并做出选择, 其中风险高低将由概率大小变化来表示。该任务既有获益和损失的简单情境, 也存在获益和损失混合的复杂情境。风险选项的选择比例往往作为该任务的风险偏好评价指标, 该比例越高则表明个体越偏好风险寻求。 | |
幸运轮盘任务 (Wheel of Fortune, WOF; Mellers et al., | 风险选项的 选择比例 | WOF任务为Classic RCT任务变式之一, 其将概率以轮盘中颜色占比来表示, 个体则需要在2种不同分配方案的轮盘中做出选择。与Classic RCT任务一致, 个体选择高风险高收益的风险选项占比作为该任务的风险偏好指标, 该比例越高则表明个体越偏好风险寻求。 | |
概率折扣任务 (Probability Discounting Task, PD; Richards et al., | 折扣率k (log k) | PD任务为Classic RCT任务变式之一, 需要个体在确定的低收益选项和一定概率获得更高收益的风险选项中做出选择。在该任务中, 根据选择结果计算折扣率(有时会进行log转换), 折扣率越大则表明个体越偏好风险规避。 |
第一作者&发表时间 | 国家 | 测量类型 | 测量内容 | 样本 (心境阶段) | 性别(女性占比) | 平均年龄 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ramírez-Martín et al., | 西班牙 | 行为实验任务 | CGT | 25个双相I型患者 | 14 (56.00%) | 52.84 |
14个健康个体 | 11 (78.57%) | 43.64 | ||||
Bodur et al., | 土耳其 | 日常风险行为 | 经济(赌博/消费) 健康(缺乏锻炼/成瘾行为) | 60个双相患者(缓解期) | 34 (56.67%) | 37.40 |
60个健康个体 | 36 (60.00%) | 41.25 | ||||
Haatveit et al., | 挪威 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(物质使用) | 522个双相患者 | 314 (60.15%) | 33.90 |
1170个健康个体 | 558 (47.69%) | 33.90 | ||||
Lippard et al., | 美国 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(物质使用) | 24个双相I型患者(缓解期) | 17 (70.83%) | 23.10 |
26个健康个体 | 14 (53.85%) | 22.70 | ||||
Martyn et al., | 爱尔兰 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(物质使用) | 40个双相患者 | 22 (55.00%) | 43.08 |
46个健康个体 | 30 (65.22%) | 41.00 | ||||
Saxena et al., | 美国 | 行为实验任务 | CGT | 30个双相患者 | 14 (46.67%) | 12.14 |
40个健康个体 | 18 (45.00%) | 12.91 | ||||
Ayidaga et al., | 土耳其 | 行为实验任务 | BART | 50个双相I型患者 (缓解期) | 34 (68.00%) | 37.96 |
50个健康个体 | 26 (52.00%) | 38.76 | ||||
Anderson et al., | 美国 | 行为实验任务 | RC tasks | 44个双相I型患者 | 28 (63.60%) | 36.18 |
28个健康个体 | 22 (78.60%) | 34.29 | ||||
Ji et al., | 美国 | 行为实验任务 | BART | 48个双相I型患者 | 21 (43.70%) | 35.15 |
53个健康个体 | 24 (45.20%) | 32.46 | ||||
Le et al., | 美国 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(物质使用) | 19个双相I型患者 | 14 (73.68%) | 21.40 |
23个健康个体 | 16 (69.27%) | 21.10 | ||||
Obeid et al., | 黎巴嫩 | 日常风险行为 | 经济(消费)/健康(物质使用/饮食行为) | 50个双相I型患者 | 27 (54.00%) | 47.02 |
50个健康个体 | 26 (52.00%) | 46.28 | ||||
Simonetti et al., | 美国 | 行为实验任务 | CGT | 42个双相患者 | 25 (59.50%) | 13.43 |
57个健康个体 | 26 (45.60%) | 12.36 | ||||
Wong et al., | 中国 | 行为实验任务 | BART | 39个双相I型患者 (缓解期) | 23 (58.90%) | 24.40 |
36个健康个体 | 19 (52.70%) | 24.70 | ||||
Gu et al., | 中国 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 29个双相患者 | 11 (37.90%) | 35.72 |
34个健康个体 | 12 (35.20%) | 33.79 | ||||
Hart et al., | 美国 | 行为实验任务/日常风险行为 | RC tasks (PD)/ 健康(物质使用) | 23个双相患者 | 11 (47.80%) | 46.60 |
88个健康个体 | 48 (54.50%) | 35.60 | ||||
Kollmann et al., | 德国 | 行为实验任务 | CGT | 54个双相I型患者 (缓解期) | 25 (46.20%) | 42.63 |
54个健康个体 | 25 (46.20%) | 43.07 | ||||
Salarvan et al., | 瑞典 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(物质使用) | 66个双相患者 32个双相患者伴注意缺陷障碍 | 38 (57.58%) 17 (53.13%) | 37.70 35.20 |
112个健康个体 | 61(54.46%) | 37.90 | ||||
曾宝尔, | 中国 | 行为实验任务 | BART | 13个双相患者 | NA | NA |
22个健康个体 | 14 (63.60%) | 18.64 | ||||
朱麒 等, | 中国 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 107个双相患者(缓解期) | 58 (54.21%) | 24.32 |
91个健康个体 | 44 (48.35%) | 23.32 | ||||
Bauer et al., | 美国 | 行为实验任务 | CGT | 28个双相患者 | 16 (57.10%) | 56.07 |
15个健康个体 | 6 (40.00%) | 55.10 | ||||
Dickerson et al., | 美国 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(物质使用) | 530个双相患者 | 371 (70.00%) | NA |
571个健康个体 | 358 (62.70%) | NA | ||||
魏格欣 等, | 中国 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 30个双相患者 (躁狂/轻躁狂期) 25个双相患者 (缓解期) | 12 (40.00%) 6 (24.00%) | 28.40 30.04 |
30个健康个体 | 13 (43.30%) | 29.93 | ||||
Bauer et al., | 美国 | 行为实验任务 | CGT | 91个双相患者 93个双相伴物质使用障碍患者 | 68 (74.70%) 63 (67.70%) | 36.67 36.59 |
93个健康个体 | 61 (65.50%) | 34.82 | ||||
Kollmann et al., | 德国 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(物质使用) | 16个双相I型患者 (缓解期) | 10 (62.50%) | 43.13 |
24个健康个体 | 12 (50.00%) | 42.73 | ||||
Vancampfort et al., | 比利时 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(缺乏锻炼) | 20个双相患者 | NA | 47.90 |
20个健康个体 | NA | 47.80 | ||||
Williams et al., | 美国 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(风险性行为/物质使用) | 113个双相患者 | 53 (46.90%) | 40.90 |
446个健康个体 | 133 (29.80%) | 43.40 | ||||
Martin et al., | 加拿大 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(饮食行为) | 82个双相患者 | 54 (65.85%) | 16.24 |
49个健康个体 | 27 (55.10%) | 15.88 | ||||
Naiberg et al., | 加拿大 | 行为实验任务/日常风险行为 | CGT/ 健康(物质使用) | 34个双相患者 | 20 (58.80%) | 17.21 |
35个健康个体 | 20 (57.10%) | 16.43 | ||||
Richard-Devantoy et al., | 法国 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 57个双相伴自杀患者 (缓解期) | 40 (70.10%) | 38.50 |
145个健康个体 | 67.7 (46.70%) | 37.10 | ||||
Saunders et al., | 英国 | 行为实验任务 | RC tasks | 20个双相患者 (缓解期) | 20 (100.00%) | 36.10 |
20个健康个体 | 20 (100.00%) | 32.70 | ||||
Scholz et al., | 德国 | 行为实验任务 | CGT | 24个双相I型患者 (缓解期) | 10 (41.60%) | 44.00 |
24个健康个体 | 10 (41.60%) | 44.00 | ||||
Urošević et al., | 美国 | 行为实验任务 | RC tasks (PD) | 34个双相患者 | NA | NA |
37个健康个体 | NA | NA | ||||
Marengo et al., | 阿根廷 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(风险性行为) | 63个双相患者 (缓解期) | 63 (100.00%) | NA |
63个健康个体 | 63 (100.00%) | NA | ||||
Ono et al., | 日本 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 13个双相II型患者 | 7 (53.80%) | 38.40 |
15个健康个体 | 7 (46.60%) | 32.90 | ||||
Vancampfort et al., | 比利时 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(物质使用/缺乏锻炼) | 30个双相患者 | 14 (46.67%) | 40.80 |
30个健康个体 | 14 (46.67%) | 40.50 | ||||
Gomide Vasconcelos et al., | 巴西 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 50个双相患者 (缓解期) | NA | NA |
216个健康个体 | NA | NA | ||||
Martino & Strejilevich, | 阿根廷 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 45个双相I型患者 | NA | 37.04 |
40个健康个体 | NA | 40.28 | ||||
Mason et al., | 英国 | 风险态度量表 | 总体风险态度 | 20个双相患者 (缓解期) | 10 (50.00%) | 35.95 |
20个健康个体 | 11 (55.00%) | 33.25 | ||||
Pavlickova et al., | 英国 | 风险态度量表 | 健康/经济(赌博) 社会/其他/ 总体态度 | 21个双相患者 | 13 (61.90%) | 48.86 |
23个健康个体 | 19 (82.60%) | 48.00 | ||||
Reddy et al., | 美国 | 行为实验任务 | BART | 46个双相I型患者 | NA | NA |
36个健康个体 | 15.9 (44.40%) | 41.40 | ||||
van Enkhuizen et al., | 美国 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 16个双相患者 (躁狂/轻躁狂期) | 7 (43.70%) | 33.80 |
17个健康个体 | 12 (70.50%) | 33.90 | ||||
Brambilla et al., | 意大利 英国 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 70个双相I型患者 (缓解期) | 33 (47.10%) | 44.60 |
140个健康个体 | 69 (49.20%) | 43.90 | ||||
Caletti et al., | 意大利 英国 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 18个双相患者 (缓解期) | 14 (77.70%) | 42.44 |
18个健康个体 | 12 (66.60%) | 36.11 | ||||
de Moraes et al., | 巴西 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 42个双相伴自杀患者 (缓解期) 53个双相无自杀患者 (缓解期) | 31 (73.80%) 34 (64.10%) | 39.60 42.00 |
115个健康个体 | 73 (63.40%) | 31.25 | ||||
Dickerson et al., | 美国 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(物质使用) | 126个双相患者 | 92 (73.02%) | 37.00 |
444个健康个体 | 285 (64.19%) | 33.10 | ||||
Edge et al., | 美国 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 55个双相I型患者 (缓解期) | 36(65.00%) | 36.00 |
39个健康个体 | 23(59.00%) | 33.50 | ||||
Fletcher et al., | 澳大 利亚 | 风险态度量表 | 总体风险态度 | 86个双相I型患者 107个双相II型患者 | NA | NA |
90个健康个体 | NA | NA | ||||
Hıdıroğlu et al., | 土耳其 | 行为实验任务 | BART | 30个双相I型患者 (缓解期) | 19 (63.30%) | 35.50 |
30个健康个体 | 19 (63.30%) | 35.73 | ||||
Levy et al., | 美国 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(物质使用) | 30个双相I型患者 (缓解期) | 13 (43.33%) | 37.60 |
30个健康个体 | 12 (54.55%) | 35.10 | ||||
Linke et al., | 德国 | 行为实验任务/日常风险行为 | CGT/ 健康(物质使用) | 19个双相I型患者 (缓解期) | 11 (57.80%) | 45.00 |
19个健康个体 | 11 (57.80%) | 45.00 | ||||
Powers et al., | 美国 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 57个双相患者 | NA | NA |
21个健康个体 | NA | NA | ||||
Ibanez et al., | 阿根廷 | 行为实验任务 | IGT RC tasks (RDMUR) | 13个双相II型患者 (缓解期) | 5 (38.40%) | 40.10 |
25个健康个体 | 9 (36.00%) | 35.10 | ||||
Jogia et al., | 英国 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 36个双相I型患者 (缓解期) | 19 (52.70%) | 42.50 |
37个健康个体 | 16 (43.20%) | 37.60 | ||||
Adida et al., | 法国 英国 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 45个双相I型患者 (躁狂/轻躁狂期) 32个双相I型患者 (抑郁期) 90个双相I型患者 (缓解期) | 22 (48.80%) 18 (56.20%) 58 (64.40%) | 37.80 43.80 39.30 |
150个健康个体 | 75 (50.00%) | 38.80 | ||||
Hariri et al., | 土耳其 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(风险性行为) | 129个双相患者 | 76 (58.90%) | 32.30 |
98个健康个体 | 50 (51.00%) | 33.80 | ||||
Malloy-Diniz et al., | 巴西 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 95个双相患者 (缓解期) | 66 (69.40%) | 41.00 |
94个健康个体 | 53 (56.30%) | 32.00 | ||||
Martino et al., | 阿根廷 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 48个双相I型患者 (缓解期) 37个双相II型患者 (缓解期) | 29 (60.60%) 29 (78.50%) | 37.70 42.80 |
34个健康个体 | 22 (64.70%) | 40.00 | ||||
Di Nicola et al., | 意大利 | 日常风险行为 | 经济(赌博/消费) 健康(风险性行为/成瘾行为) | 158个双相患者 | 93 (58.80%) | 48.70 |
200个健康个体 | 120 (60.00%) | 46.20 | ||||
Lamy, | 美国 | 行为实验任务 | BART RC tasks (PD) | 16个双相I型患者 (缓解期) | 6 (37.50%) | 28.00 |
23个健康个体 | 11 (47.80%) | 26.00 | ||||
Holmes et al., | 美国 | 行为实验任务 | BART | 31个双相伴酒精滥用患者 24个双相无酒精滥用患者 | 15 (48.40%) 19 (79.20%) | 42.40 39.50 |
25个健康个体 | 14 (56.00%) | 38.30 | ||||
Malloy-Diniz et al., | 巴西 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 17个双相I型伴自杀患者 19个双相I型无自杀患者 | NA | NA NA |
53个健康个体 | 35 (66.00%) | 36.90 | ||||
Adida et al., | 法国 英国 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 45个双相I型患者 (躁狂/轻躁狂期) | 22 (48.80%) | 37.80 |
45个健康个体 | 22 (48.80%) | 37.30 | ||||
Frangou et al., | 英国 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 7个双相I型患者 (缓解期) | 5 (71.40%) | 37.00 |
7个健康个体 | 5 (71.40%) | 39.00 | ||||
Yechiam et al., | 以色列 | 行为实验任务/日常风险行为 | IGT/ 健康(物质使用) | 28个双相I型患者 (缓解期/发病期) | NA NA | 45.00 43.10 |
25个健康个体 | 16 (64.00%) | 39.20 | ||||
Taylor Tavares et al., | 英国 | 行为实验任务 | CGT | 17个双相II型患者 | 12 (70.50%) | 32.60 |
25个健康个体 | 18 (72.00%) | 34.80 | ||||
Thomas et al., | 英国 | 风险态度量表 | 总体风险态度 | 14个双相患者 (抑郁期) 30个双相患者 (躁狂/轻躁狂期) 29个双相患者(缓解期) | 3 (21.40%) 20 (66.60%) 18(62.00%) | 38.28 45.86 45.82 |
44个健康个体 | 30 (68.1%) | 37.40 | ||||
Rubinsztein et al., | 英国 | 行为实验任务 | CGT | 24个双相I型患者 (抑郁期) | NA | 43.70 |
26个健康个体 | NA | 39.30 | ||||
Goldberg et al., | 美国 | 风险态度量表 | 总体风险态度 | 23个双相患者 (躁狂/轻躁狂期) | 12(52.10%) | 40.35 |
24个健康个体 | 17(70.80%) | 31.67 | ||||
Ernst et al., | 美国 | 行为实验任务 | RC tasks (WOF) | 22个双相患者 | 7 (31.80%) | 13.80 |
22个健康个体 | 11 (50.00%) | 13.60 | ||||
Clark et al., | 英国 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 15个双相I型患者 (躁狂/轻躁狂期) | 5 (33.30%) | 35.40 |
30个健康个体 | 14 (46.60%) | 37.60 | ||||
Murphy et al., | 英国 | 行为实验任务 | CGT | 18个双相I型患者 (躁狂/轻躁狂期) | 10 (55.50%) | 36.30 |
26个健康个体 | 14 (53.80%) | 36.40 |
附表4 元分析纳入文献的样本特征
第一作者&发表时间 | 国家 | 测量类型 | 测量内容 | 样本 (心境阶段) | 性别(女性占比) | 平均年龄 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ramírez-Martín et al., | 西班牙 | 行为实验任务 | CGT | 25个双相I型患者 | 14 (56.00%) | 52.84 |
14个健康个体 | 11 (78.57%) | 43.64 | ||||
Bodur et al., | 土耳其 | 日常风险行为 | 经济(赌博/消费) 健康(缺乏锻炼/成瘾行为) | 60个双相患者(缓解期) | 34 (56.67%) | 37.40 |
60个健康个体 | 36 (60.00%) | 41.25 | ||||
Haatveit et al., | 挪威 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(物质使用) | 522个双相患者 | 314 (60.15%) | 33.90 |
1170个健康个体 | 558 (47.69%) | 33.90 | ||||
Lippard et al., | 美国 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(物质使用) | 24个双相I型患者(缓解期) | 17 (70.83%) | 23.10 |
26个健康个体 | 14 (53.85%) | 22.70 | ||||
Martyn et al., | 爱尔兰 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(物质使用) | 40个双相患者 | 22 (55.00%) | 43.08 |
46个健康个体 | 30 (65.22%) | 41.00 | ||||
Saxena et al., | 美国 | 行为实验任务 | CGT | 30个双相患者 | 14 (46.67%) | 12.14 |
40个健康个体 | 18 (45.00%) | 12.91 | ||||
Ayidaga et al., | 土耳其 | 行为实验任务 | BART | 50个双相I型患者 (缓解期) | 34 (68.00%) | 37.96 |
50个健康个体 | 26 (52.00%) | 38.76 | ||||
Anderson et al., | 美国 | 行为实验任务 | RC tasks | 44个双相I型患者 | 28 (63.60%) | 36.18 |
28个健康个体 | 22 (78.60%) | 34.29 | ||||
Ji et al., | 美国 | 行为实验任务 | BART | 48个双相I型患者 | 21 (43.70%) | 35.15 |
53个健康个体 | 24 (45.20%) | 32.46 | ||||
Le et al., | 美国 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(物质使用) | 19个双相I型患者 | 14 (73.68%) | 21.40 |
23个健康个体 | 16 (69.27%) | 21.10 | ||||
Obeid et al., | 黎巴嫩 | 日常风险行为 | 经济(消费)/健康(物质使用/饮食行为) | 50个双相I型患者 | 27 (54.00%) | 47.02 |
50个健康个体 | 26 (52.00%) | 46.28 | ||||
Simonetti et al., | 美国 | 行为实验任务 | CGT | 42个双相患者 | 25 (59.50%) | 13.43 |
57个健康个体 | 26 (45.60%) | 12.36 | ||||
Wong et al., | 中国 | 行为实验任务 | BART | 39个双相I型患者 (缓解期) | 23 (58.90%) | 24.40 |
36个健康个体 | 19 (52.70%) | 24.70 | ||||
Gu et al., | 中国 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 29个双相患者 | 11 (37.90%) | 35.72 |
34个健康个体 | 12 (35.20%) | 33.79 | ||||
Hart et al., | 美国 | 行为实验任务/日常风险行为 | RC tasks (PD)/ 健康(物质使用) | 23个双相患者 | 11 (47.80%) | 46.60 |
88个健康个体 | 48 (54.50%) | 35.60 | ||||
Kollmann et al., | 德国 | 行为实验任务 | CGT | 54个双相I型患者 (缓解期) | 25 (46.20%) | 42.63 |
54个健康个体 | 25 (46.20%) | 43.07 | ||||
Salarvan et al., | 瑞典 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(物质使用) | 66个双相患者 32个双相患者伴注意缺陷障碍 | 38 (57.58%) 17 (53.13%) | 37.70 35.20 |
112个健康个体 | 61(54.46%) | 37.90 | ||||
曾宝尔, | 中国 | 行为实验任务 | BART | 13个双相患者 | NA | NA |
22个健康个体 | 14 (63.60%) | 18.64 | ||||
朱麒 等, | 中国 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 107个双相患者(缓解期) | 58 (54.21%) | 24.32 |
91个健康个体 | 44 (48.35%) | 23.32 | ||||
Bauer et al., | 美国 | 行为实验任务 | CGT | 28个双相患者 | 16 (57.10%) | 56.07 |
15个健康个体 | 6 (40.00%) | 55.10 | ||||
Dickerson et al., | 美国 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(物质使用) | 530个双相患者 | 371 (70.00%) | NA |
571个健康个体 | 358 (62.70%) | NA | ||||
魏格欣 等, | 中国 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 30个双相患者 (躁狂/轻躁狂期) 25个双相患者 (缓解期) | 12 (40.00%) 6 (24.00%) | 28.40 30.04 |
30个健康个体 | 13 (43.30%) | 29.93 | ||||
Bauer et al., | 美国 | 行为实验任务 | CGT | 91个双相患者 93个双相伴物质使用障碍患者 | 68 (74.70%) 63 (67.70%) | 36.67 36.59 |
93个健康个体 | 61 (65.50%) | 34.82 | ||||
Kollmann et al., | 德国 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(物质使用) | 16个双相I型患者 (缓解期) | 10 (62.50%) | 43.13 |
24个健康个体 | 12 (50.00%) | 42.73 | ||||
Vancampfort et al., | 比利时 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(缺乏锻炼) | 20个双相患者 | NA | 47.90 |
20个健康个体 | NA | 47.80 | ||||
Williams et al., | 美国 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(风险性行为/物质使用) | 113个双相患者 | 53 (46.90%) | 40.90 |
446个健康个体 | 133 (29.80%) | 43.40 | ||||
Martin et al., | 加拿大 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(饮食行为) | 82个双相患者 | 54 (65.85%) | 16.24 |
49个健康个体 | 27 (55.10%) | 15.88 | ||||
Naiberg et al., | 加拿大 | 行为实验任务/日常风险行为 | CGT/ 健康(物质使用) | 34个双相患者 | 20 (58.80%) | 17.21 |
35个健康个体 | 20 (57.10%) | 16.43 | ||||
Richard-Devantoy et al., | 法国 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 57个双相伴自杀患者 (缓解期) | 40 (70.10%) | 38.50 |
145个健康个体 | 67.7 (46.70%) | 37.10 | ||||
Saunders et al., | 英国 | 行为实验任务 | RC tasks | 20个双相患者 (缓解期) | 20 (100.00%) | 36.10 |
20个健康个体 | 20 (100.00%) | 32.70 | ||||
Scholz et al., | 德国 | 行为实验任务 | CGT | 24个双相I型患者 (缓解期) | 10 (41.60%) | 44.00 |
24个健康个体 | 10 (41.60%) | 44.00 | ||||
Urošević et al., | 美国 | 行为实验任务 | RC tasks (PD) | 34个双相患者 | NA | NA |
37个健康个体 | NA | NA | ||||
Marengo et al., | 阿根廷 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(风险性行为) | 63个双相患者 (缓解期) | 63 (100.00%) | NA |
63个健康个体 | 63 (100.00%) | NA | ||||
Ono et al., | 日本 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 13个双相II型患者 | 7 (53.80%) | 38.40 |
15个健康个体 | 7 (46.60%) | 32.90 | ||||
Vancampfort et al., | 比利时 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(物质使用/缺乏锻炼) | 30个双相患者 | 14 (46.67%) | 40.80 |
30个健康个体 | 14 (46.67%) | 40.50 | ||||
Gomide Vasconcelos et al., | 巴西 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 50个双相患者 (缓解期) | NA | NA |
216个健康个体 | NA | NA | ||||
Martino & Strejilevich, | 阿根廷 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 45个双相I型患者 | NA | 37.04 |
40个健康个体 | NA | 40.28 | ||||
Mason et al., | 英国 | 风险态度量表 | 总体风险态度 | 20个双相患者 (缓解期) | 10 (50.00%) | 35.95 |
20个健康个体 | 11 (55.00%) | 33.25 | ||||
Pavlickova et al., | 英国 | 风险态度量表 | 健康/经济(赌博) 社会/其他/ 总体态度 | 21个双相患者 | 13 (61.90%) | 48.86 |
23个健康个体 | 19 (82.60%) | 48.00 | ||||
Reddy et al., | 美国 | 行为实验任务 | BART | 46个双相I型患者 | NA | NA |
36个健康个体 | 15.9 (44.40%) | 41.40 | ||||
van Enkhuizen et al., | 美国 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 16个双相患者 (躁狂/轻躁狂期) | 7 (43.70%) | 33.80 |
17个健康个体 | 12 (70.50%) | 33.90 | ||||
Brambilla et al., | 意大利 英国 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 70个双相I型患者 (缓解期) | 33 (47.10%) | 44.60 |
140个健康个体 | 69 (49.20%) | 43.90 | ||||
Caletti et al., | 意大利 英国 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 18个双相患者 (缓解期) | 14 (77.70%) | 42.44 |
18个健康个体 | 12 (66.60%) | 36.11 | ||||
de Moraes et al., | 巴西 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 42个双相伴自杀患者 (缓解期) 53个双相无自杀患者 (缓解期) | 31 (73.80%) 34 (64.10%) | 39.60 42.00 |
115个健康个体 | 73 (63.40%) | 31.25 | ||||
Dickerson et al., | 美国 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(物质使用) | 126个双相患者 | 92 (73.02%) | 37.00 |
444个健康个体 | 285 (64.19%) | 33.10 | ||||
Edge et al., | 美国 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 55个双相I型患者 (缓解期) | 36(65.00%) | 36.00 |
39个健康个体 | 23(59.00%) | 33.50 | ||||
Fletcher et al., | 澳大 利亚 | 风险态度量表 | 总体风险态度 | 86个双相I型患者 107个双相II型患者 | NA | NA |
90个健康个体 | NA | NA | ||||
Hıdıroğlu et al., | 土耳其 | 行为实验任务 | BART | 30个双相I型患者 (缓解期) | 19 (63.30%) | 35.50 |
30个健康个体 | 19 (63.30%) | 35.73 | ||||
Levy et al., | 美国 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(物质使用) | 30个双相I型患者 (缓解期) | 13 (43.33%) | 37.60 |
30个健康个体 | 12 (54.55%) | 35.10 | ||||
Linke et al., | 德国 | 行为实验任务/日常风险行为 | CGT/ 健康(物质使用) | 19个双相I型患者 (缓解期) | 11 (57.80%) | 45.00 |
19个健康个体 | 11 (57.80%) | 45.00 | ||||
Powers et al., | 美国 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 57个双相患者 | NA | NA |
21个健康个体 | NA | NA | ||||
Ibanez et al., | 阿根廷 | 行为实验任务 | IGT RC tasks (RDMUR) | 13个双相II型患者 (缓解期) | 5 (38.40%) | 40.10 |
25个健康个体 | 9 (36.00%) | 35.10 | ||||
Jogia et al., | 英国 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 36个双相I型患者 (缓解期) | 19 (52.70%) | 42.50 |
37个健康个体 | 16 (43.20%) | 37.60 | ||||
Adida et al., | 法国 英国 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 45个双相I型患者 (躁狂/轻躁狂期) 32个双相I型患者 (抑郁期) 90个双相I型患者 (缓解期) | 22 (48.80%) 18 (56.20%) 58 (64.40%) | 37.80 43.80 39.30 |
150个健康个体 | 75 (50.00%) | 38.80 | ||||
Hariri et al., | 土耳其 | 日常风险行为 | 健康(风险性行为) | 129个双相患者 | 76 (58.90%) | 32.30 |
98个健康个体 | 50 (51.00%) | 33.80 | ||||
Malloy-Diniz et al., | 巴西 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 95个双相患者 (缓解期) | 66 (69.40%) | 41.00 |
94个健康个体 | 53 (56.30%) | 32.00 | ||||
Martino et al., | 阿根廷 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 48个双相I型患者 (缓解期) 37个双相II型患者 (缓解期) | 29 (60.60%) 29 (78.50%) | 37.70 42.80 |
34个健康个体 | 22 (64.70%) | 40.00 | ||||
Di Nicola et al., | 意大利 | 日常风险行为 | 经济(赌博/消费) 健康(风险性行为/成瘾行为) | 158个双相患者 | 93 (58.80%) | 48.70 |
200个健康个体 | 120 (60.00%) | 46.20 | ||||
Lamy, | 美国 | 行为实验任务 | BART RC tasks (PD) | 16个双相I型患者 (缓解期) | 6 (37.50%) | 28.00 |
23个健康个体 | 11 (47.80%) | 26.00 | ||||
Holmes et al., | 美国 | 行为实验任务 | BART | 31个双相伴酒精滥用患者 24个双相无酒精滥用患者 | 15 (48.40%) 19 (79.20%) | 42.40 39.50 |
25个健康个体 | 14 (56.00%) | 38.30 | ||||
Malloy-Diniz et al., | 巴西 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 17个双相I型伴自杀患者 19个双相I型无自杀患者 | NA | NA NA |
53个健康个体 | 35 (66.00%) | 36.90 | ||||
Adida et al., | 法国 英国 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 45个双相I型患者 (躁狂/轻躁狂期) | 22 (48.80%) | 37.80 |
45个健康个体 | 22 (48.80%) | 37.30 | ||||
Frangou et al., | 英国 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 7个双相I型患者 (缓解期) | 5 (71.40%) | 37.00 |
7个健康个体 | 5 (71.40%) | 39.00 | ||||
Yechiam et al., | 以色列 | 行为实验任务/日常风险行为 | IGT/ 健康(物质使用) | 28个双相I型患者 (缓解期/发病期) | NA NA | 45.00 43.10 |
25个健康个体 | 16 (64.00%) | 39.20 | ||||
Taylor Tavares et al., | 英国 | 行为实验任务 | CGT | 17个双相II型患者 | 12 (70.50%) | 32.60 |
25个健康个体 | 18 (72.00%) | 34.80 | ||||
Thomas et al., | 英国 | 风险态度量表 | 总体风险态度 | 14个双相患者 (抑郁期) 30个双相患者 (躁狂/轻躁狂期) 29个双相患者(缓解期) | 3 (21.40%) 20 (66.60%) 18(62.00%) | 38.28 45.86 45.82 |
44个健康个体 | 30 (68.1%) | 37.40 | ||||
Rubinsztein et al., | 英国 | 行为实验任务 | CGT | 24个双相I型患者 (抑郁期) | NA | 43.70 |
26个健康个体 | NA | 39.30 | ||||
Goldberg et al., | 美国 | 风险态度量表 | 总体风险态度 | 23个双相患者 (躁狂/轻躁狂期) | 12(52.10%) | 40.35 |
24个健康个体 | 17(70.80%) | 31.67 | ||||
Ernst et al., | 美国 | 行为实验任务 | RC tasks (WOF) | 22个双相患者 | 7 (31.80%) | 13.80 |
22个健康个体 | 11 (50.00%) | 13.60 | ||||
Clark et al., | 英国 | 行为实验任务 | IGT | 15个双相I型患者 (躁狂/轻躁狂期) | 5 (33.30%) | 35.40 |
30个健康个体 | 14 (46.60%) | 37.60 | ||||
Murphy et al., | 英国 | 行为实验任务 | CGT | 18个双相I型患者 (躁狂/轻躁狂期) | 10 (55.50%) | 36.30 |
26个健康个体 | 14 (53.80%) | 36.40 |
模型 | 调节变量 | No. of ESs | QE (df) | F (df1, df2) | Hedges' g/β | SE | 95% CI | t | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
总体模型 | a. 集体/个体主义 | 176 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
集体主义 C | 36 | QE (174) = 684.26, p < 0.001 | F (1, 174) = 2.34, p = 0.128 | 0.426 | 0.092 | [0.245, 0.607] | 4.65 | < 0.001 | |
个体主义 I | 140 | 0.268 | 0.047 | [0.176, 0.361] | 5.73 | < 0.001 | |||
C vs. I | - | −0.157 | 0.103 | [−0.360, 0.046] | −1.53 | 0.128 | |||
b. 文化紧度 | 142 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
文化紧度低 L | 75 | QE (140) = 577.28, p < 0.001 | F (1, 140) = 0.00 p = 0.990 | 0.315 | 0.064 | [0.187, 0.442] | 4.89 | < 0.001 | |
文化紧度高 G | 67 | 0.316 | 0.070 | [0.178, 0.454] | 4.54 | < 0.001 | |||
L vs. G | - | 0.001 | 0.095 | [−0.186, 0.189] | 0.01 | 0.990 | |||
行为实验 任务模型 | a. 集体/个体主义 | 88 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
集体主义 C | 18 | QE (88) = 252.72, p < 0.001 | F (1, 86) = 6.90, p = 0.010 | 0.522 | 0.114 | [0.295, 0.749] | 4.58 | < 0.001 | |
个体主义 I | 70 | 0.178 | 0.064 | [0.051, 0.306] | 2.78 | .007 | |||
C vs. I | - | −0.344 | 0.131 | [−0.604, −0.084] | −2.63 | 00.010 | |||
b. 文化紧度 | 71 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
文化紧度低 L | 41 | QE (69) = 240.07, p < 0.001 | F (1, 69) = 1.34, p = 0.252 | 0.220 | 0.089 | [0.042, 0.398] | 2.46 | 0.016 | |
文化紧度高 G | 30 | 0.373 | 0.098 | [0.178, 0.567] | 3.82 | < 0.001 | |||
L vs. G | - | 0.153 | 0.132 | [−0.111, 0.417] | 1.16 | 0.252 | |||
日常态度 和行为模型 | a. 集体/个体主义 | 88 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
集体主义 C | 18 | QE (86) = 352.98, p < 0.001 | F (1, 86) = 0.83, p = 0.364 | 0.222 | 0.165 | [−0.107, 0.550] | 1.34 | 0.183 | |
个体主义 I | 70 | 0.386 | 0.070 | [0.246, 0.526] | 5.47 | < 0.001 | |||
C vs. I | - | 0.164 | 0.180 | [−0.193, 0.521] | 0.91 | 0.364 | |||
b. 文化紧度 | 71 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
文化紧度低 L | 34 | QE (69) = 309.86, p < 0.001 | F (1, 69) = 2.09, p = 0.153 | 0.462 | 0.104 | [0.254, 0.669] | 4.44 | < 0.001 | |
文化紧度高 G | 37 | 0.242 | 0.111 | [0.021, 0.463] | 2.19 | 0.032 | |||
L vs. G | - | −0.219 | 0.152 | [−0.523, 0.084] | −1.45 | 0.153 |
附表5 集体/个体主义和文化紧度对双相障碍与风险决策偏好关系的调节效应结果表
模型 | 调节变量 | No. of ESs | QE (df) | F (df1, df2) | Hedges' g/β | SE | 95% CI | t | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
总体模型 | a. 集体/个体主义 | 176 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
集体主义 C | 36 | QE (174) = 684.26, p < 0.001 | F (1, 174) = 2.34, p = 0.128 | 0.426 | 0.092 | [0.245, 0.607] | 4.65 | < 0.001 | |
个体主义 I | 140 | 0.268 | 0.047 | [0.176, 0.361] | 5.73 | < 0.001 | |||
C vs. I | - | −0.157 | 0.103 | [−0.360, 0.046] | −1.53 | 0.128 | |||
b. 文化紧度 | 142 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
文化紧度低 L | 75 | QE (140) = 577.28, p < 0.001 | F (1, 140) = 0.00 p = 0.990 | 0.315 | 0.064 | [0.187, 0.442] | 4.89 | < 0.001 | |
文化紧度高 G | 67 | 0.316 | 0.070 | [0.178, 0.454] | 4.54 | < 0.001 | |||
L vs. G | - | 0.001 | 0.095 | [−0.186, 0.189] | 0.01 | 0.990 | |||
行为实验 任务模型 | a. 集体/个体主义 | 88 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
集体主义 C | 18 | QE (88) = 252.72, p < 0.001 | F (1, 86) = 6.90, p = 0.010 | 0.522 | 0.114 | [0.295, 0.749] | 4.58 | < 0.001 | |
个体主义 I | 70 | 0.178 | 0.064 | [0.051, 0.306] | 2.78 | .007 | |||
C vs. I | - | −0.344 | 0.131 | [−0.604, −0.084] | −2.63 | 00.010 | |||
b. 文化紧度 | 71 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
文化紧度低 L | 41 | QE (69) = 240.07, p < 0.001 | F (1, 69) = 1.34, p = 0.252 | 0.220 | 0.089 | [0.042, 0.398] | 2.46 | 0.016 | |
文化紧度高 G | 30 | 0.373 | 0.098 | [0.178, 0.567] | 3.82 | < 0.001 | |||
L vs. G | - | 0.153 | 0.132 | [−0.111, 0.417] | 1.16 | 0.252 | |||
日常态度 和行为模型 | a. 集体/个体主义 | 88 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
集体主义 C | 18 | QE (86) = 352.98, p < 0.001 | F (1, 86) = 0.83, p = 0.364 | 0.222 | 0.165 | [−0.107, 0.550] | 1.34 | 0.183 | |
个体主义 I | 70 | 0.386 | 0.070 | [0.246, 0.526] | 5.47 | < 0.001 | |||
C vs. I | - | 0.164 | 0.180 | [−0.193, 0.521] | 0.91 | 0.364 | |||
b. 文化紧度 | 71 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
文化紧度低 L | 34 | QE (69) = 309.86, p < 0.001 | F (1, 69) = 2.09, p = 0.153 | 0.462 | 0.104 | [0.254, 0.669] | 4.44 | < 0.001 | |
文化紧度高 G | 37 | 0.242 | 0.111 | [0.021, 0.463] | 2.19 | 0.032 | |||
L vs. G | - | −0.219 | 0.152 | [−0.523, 0.084] | −1.45 | 0.153 |
*标记为纳入元分析的文献 | |
[1] |
* Adida, M., Clark, L., Pomietto, P., Kaladjian, A., Besnier, N., Azorin, J. M., Jeanningros, R., & Goodwin, G. M. (2008). Lack of insight may predict impaired decision making in manic patients. Bipolar Disorders, 10(7), 829-837. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-5618.2008.00618.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1399-5618.2008.00618.x URL pmid: 19032715 |
[2] |
* Adida, M., Jollant, F., Clark, L., Besnier, N., Guillaume, S., Kaladjian, A., ... Courtet, P. (2011). Trait-related decision-making impairment in the three phases of bipolar disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 70(4), 357-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.01.018
doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.01.018 URL pmid: 21429477 |
[3] | American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.) (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 |
[4] | Amlung, M., Marsden, E., Holshausen, K., Morris, V., Patel, H., Vedelago, L., ... McCabe, R. E. (2019). Delay discounting as a transdiagnostic process in psychiatric disorders: A meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry, 76(11), 1176-1186. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.2102 |
[5] | * Anderson, Z., Fairley, K., Villanueva, C. M., Carter, R. M., & Gruber, J. (2021). No group differences in traditional economics measures of loss aversion and framing effects in bipolar i disorder. Plos One, 16(11), e0258360. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258360 |
[6] | Arria, A. M., Caldeira, K. M., Allen, H. K., Bugbee, B. A., Vincent, K. B., & O'Grady, K. E. (2017). Prevalence and incidence of drug use among college students: An 8-year longitudinal analysis. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 43(6), 711-718. https://doi.org/10.1080/00952990.2017.1310219 |
[7] |
Arts, B., Jabben, N. E. J. G., Krabbendam, L., & van Os, J. (2011). A 2-year naturalistic study on cognitive functioning in bipolar disorder. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 123(3), 190-205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2010.01601.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2010.01601.x URL pmid: 20846251 |
[8] | Assink, M., & Wibbelink, C. J. M. (2016). Fitting three-level meta-analytic models in R: A step-by-step tutorial. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 12(3), 154-174. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.12.3.p154 |
[9] | * Ayidaga, T., Ozel-Kizil, E.T., Çolak, B., & Akman-Ayidaga, E. (2022). Detailed analysis of risk-taking in association with impulsivity and aggression in euthymic patients with bipolar disorder type I. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 34(7), 917-929. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2022. 2098303 |
[10] | Azorin, J. M., Belzeaux, R., Kaladjian, A., Adida, M., Hantouche, E., Lancrenon, S., & Fakra, E. (2013). Risks associated with gender differences in bipolar I disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders, 151(3), 1033-1040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2013.08.031 |
[11] |
* Bauer, I. E., Diniz, B. S., Meyer, T. D., Teixeira, A. L., Sanches, M., Spiker, D., Zunta-Soares, G., & Soares, J. C. (2018). Increased reward-oriented impulsivity in older bipolar patients: A preliminary study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 225, 585-592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.08.067
doi: S0165-0327(17)30861-3 URL pmid: 28886499 |
[12] |
* Bauer, I. E., Meyer, T. D., Sanches, M., Spiker, D., Zunta-Soares, G., & Soares, J. C. (2017). Are self-rated and behavioural measures of impulsivity in bipolar disorder mainly related to comorbid substance use problems? Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 22(4), 298-314. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546805.2017.1324951
doi: 10.1080/13546805.2017.1324951 URL pmid: 28490234 |
[13] |
Benazzi, F. (2003). The role of gender in depressive mixed state. Psychopathology, 36(4), 213-217. https://doi.org/10.1159/000072792
URL pmid: 14504456 |
[14] |
Birmaher, B. (2013). Bipolar disorder in children and adolescents. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 18(3), 140-148. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12021
doi: 10.1111/camh.12021 URL pmid: 24273457 |
[15] | Blais, A. -R., & Weber, E. U. (2006). A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations. Judgment and Decision Making, 1(1), 33-47. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500000334 |
[16] |
Blankenstein, N. E., Peper, J. S., Crone, E. A., & van Duijvenvoorde, A. C. K. (2017). Neural mechanisms underlying risk and ambiguity attitudes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 29(11), 1845-1859. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01162
doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_01162 URL pmid: 28686139 |
[17] | * Bodur, B., Doğanavşargil Baysal, G. Ö., & Erdoğan, A. (2023). Comparison of behavioral addictions between euthymic bipolar disorder patients and healthy volunteers. Neuropsychiatric Investigation, 6(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.5152/NeuropsychiatricInvest.2023.22028 |
[18] |
Bolton, S., Warner, J., Harriss, E., Geddes, J., & Saunders, K. E. A. (2021). Bipolar disorder: Trimodal age-at-onset distribution. Bipolar Disorders, 23(4), 341-356. https://doi.org/10.1111/bdi.13016
doi: 10.1111/bdi.13016 URL pmid: 33030292 |
[19] |
Bora, E., Yucel, M., & Pantelis, C. (2009). Cognitive endophenotypes of bipolar disorder: A meta-analysis of neuropsychological deficits in euthymic patients and their first-degree relatives. Journal of Affective Disorders, 113(1-2), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2008.06.009
doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2008.06.009 URL pmid: 18684514 |
[20] |
Braddock, K. H., Dillard, J. P., Voigt, D. C., Stephenson, M. T., Sopory, P., & Anderson, J. W. (2011). Impulsivity partially mediates the relationship between BIS/BAS and risky health behaviors. Journal of Personality, 79(4), 793-810. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00699.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00699.x URL pmid: 21682726 |
[21] | Bragazzi, N. L., Beamish, D., Kong, J. D., & Wu, J. (2021). Illicit drug use in Canada and implications for suicidal behaviors, and household food insecurity: Findings from a large, nationally representative survey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(12), 6425. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126425 |
[22] | Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (1990). Gist is the grist: Fuzzy-trace theory and the new intuitionism. Developmental Review, 10(1), 3-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(90)90003-M |
[23] |
* Brambilla, P., Perlini, C., Bellani, M., Tomelleri, L., Ferro, A., Cerruti, S., ... Frangou, S. (2013). Increased salience of gains versus decreased associative learning differentiate bipolar disorder from schizophrenia during incentive decision making. Psychological Medicine, 43(3), 571-580. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291712001304
doi: 10.1017/S0033291712001304 URL pmid: 22687364 |
[24] | Brener, N. D., Kann, L., Kinchen, S. A., Grunbaum, J. A., Whalen, L., Eaton, D., Hawkins, J., & Ross, J. G. (2004). Methodology of the youth risk behavior surveillance system. MMWR. Recommendations and reports: Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and Reports, 53(RR-12), 1-13. |
[25] |
Buelow, M. T., & Blaine, A. L. (2015). The assessment of risky decision making: A factor analysis of performance on the Iowa Gambling Task, Balloon Analogue Risk Task, and Columbia Card Task. Psychological Assessment, 27(3), 777-785. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038622
doi: 10.1037/a0038622 URL pmid: 25580611 |
[26] | Butler, S., Rosman, A., Seleski, S., Garcia, M., Lee, S., Barnes, J., & Schwartz, A. (2012). A medical risk attitude subscale for DOSPERT. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(2), 189-195. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500003028 |
[27] | Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367-383. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.367 |
[28] | Cai, H. D., Zhang, Q., Cai, Q., & Chen, Q. R. (2012). Iowa Game Task and cognitive neural mechanisms on decision-making. Advances in Psychological Science, 20(9), 1401-1410. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2012.0140 |
[蔡厚德, 张权, 蔡琦, 陈庆荣. (2012). 爱荷华博弈任务(IGT)与决策的认知神经机制. 心理科学进展, 20(9), 1401-1410. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2012.0140]
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2012.01401 URL |
|
[29] |
* Caletti, E., Paoli, R. A., Fiorentini, A., Cigliobianco, M., Zugno, E., Serati, M., ... Altamura, A. C. (2013). Neuropsychology, social cognition and global functioning among bipolar, schizophrenic patients and healthy controls: Preliminary data. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 661. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00661
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00661 URL pmid: 24146642 |
[30] | Chan, E. Y., & Saqib, N. U. (2021). The moderating role of processing style in risk perceptions and risky decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 34(2), 290-299. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2210 |
[31] | Charness, G., & Gneezy, U. (2012). Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 83(1), 50-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.06.007 |
[32] | Chen, X. J., Ba, L., & Kwak, Y. (2020). Neurocognitive underpinnings of cross-cultural differences in risky decision making. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 15(6), 671-680. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsaa078 |
[33] |
Cheung, M. W. L. (2014). Modeling dependent effect sizes with three-level meta-analyses: A structural equation modeling approach. Psychological Methods, 19(2), 211-229. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032968
doi: 10.1037/a0032968 URL pmid: 23834422 |
[34] |
* Clark, L., Iversen, S. D., & Goodwin, G. M. (2001). A neuropsychological investigation of prefrontal cortex involvement in acute mania. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(10), 1605-1611. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.158.10.1605
URL pmid: 11578991 |
[35] | Collett, J. (2016). It's not all about that bas: Trait bipolar disorder vulnerability weakly correlated with trait bas and not predictive of risky decision-making [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Swinburne University of Technology. |
[36] | Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 448-474. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.47.2.448 |
[37] |
Cullen, B., Ward, J., Graham, N. A., Deary, I. J., Pell, J. P., Smith, D. J., & Evans, J. J. (2016). Prevalence and correlates of cognitive impairment in euthymic adults with bipolar disorder: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 205, 165-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.06.063
doi: S0165-0327(16)30753-4 URL pmid: 27449549 |
[38] | da Silva, J., Gonçalves-Pereira, M., Xavier, M., & Mukaetova-Ladinska, E. B. (2013). Affective disorders and risk of developing dementia: Systematic review. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 202(3), 177-186. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.111.101931 |
[39] |
Defoe, I. N., Dubas, J. S., Figner, B., & van Aken, M. A. (2015). A meta-analysis on age differences in risky decision making: Adolescents versus children and adults. Psychological Bulletin, 141(1), 48-84. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038088
doi: 10.1037/a0038088 URL pmid: 25365761 |
[40] |
Dekkers, T. J., Popma, A., van Rentergem, J. A. A., Bexkens, A., & Huizenga, H. M. (2016). Risky decision making in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A meta-regression analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 45, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2016.03.001
doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2016.03.001 URL pmid: 26978323 |
[41] | * de Moraes, P. H. P., Neves, F. S., Vasconcelos, A. G., Lima, I. M. M., Brancaglion, M., Sedyiama, C. Y., ... Malloy-Diniz, L. F. (2013). Relationship between neuropsychological and clinical aspects and suicide attempts in euthymic bipolar patients. Psicologia: Reflexao e Critica, 26(1), 160-167. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-79722013000100017 |
[42] |
* Dickerson, F., Schroeder, J., Katsafanas, E., Khushalani, S., Origoni, A. E., Savage, C., ... Yolken, R. H. (2018). Cigarette smoking by patients with serious mental illness, 1999-2016: An increasing disparity. Psychiatric Services, 69(2), 147-153. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201700118
doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201700118 URL pmid: 28945183 |
[43] |
* Dickerson, F., Stallings, C. R., Origoni, A. E., Vaughan, C., Khushalani, S., Schroeder, J., & Yolken, R. H. (2013). Cigarette smoking among persons with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder in routine clinical settings, 1999-2011. Psychiatric Services, 64(1), 44-50. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201200143
doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201200143 URL pmid: 23280457 |
[44] |
* Di Nicola, M., Tedeschi, D., Mazza, M., Martinotti, G., Harnic, D., Catalano, V., ... Janiri, L. (2010). Behavioural addictions in bipolar disorder patients: Role of impulsivity and personality dimensions. Journal of Affective Disorders, 125(1-3), 82-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2009.12.016
doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2009.12.016 URL pmid: 20083309 |
[45] |
Diniz, B. S., Teixeira, A. L., Cao, F., Gildengers, A., Soares, J. C., Butters, M. A., & Reynolds III, C. F. (2017). History of bipolar disorder and the risk of dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 25(4), 357-362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2016.11.014
doi: S1064-7481(16)30308-6 URL pmid: 28161155 |
[46] |
Dir, A. L., Coskunpinar, A., & Cyders, M. A. (2014). A meta-analytic review of the relationship between adolescent risky sexual behavior and impulsivity across gender, age, and race. Clinical Psychology Review, 34(7), 551-562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2014.08.004
doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2014.08.004 URL pmid: 25261740 |
[47] | Du, W., Green, L., & Myerson, J. (2002). Cross-cultural comparisons of discounting delayed and probabilistic rewards. Psychological Record, 52(4), 479-492. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395199 |
[48] |
Duffy, A. (2009). The early course of bipolar disorder in youth at familial risk. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 18(3), 200-205.
pmid: 19718420 |
[49] |
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455-463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x
doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x URL pmid: 10877304 |
[50] |
* Edge, M. D., Johnson, S. L., Ng, T., & Carver, C. S. (2013). Iowa gambling task performance in euthymic bipolar I disorder: A meta-analysis and empirical study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 150(1), 115-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2012.11.027
doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2012.11.027 URL pmid: 23219060 |
[51] | * Ernst, M., Dickstein, D. P., Munson, S., Eshel, N., Pradella, A., Jazbec, S., Pine, D. S., & Leibenluft, E. (2004). Reward-related processes in pediatric bipolar disorder: A pilot study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 82, S89-S101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2004.05.022 |
[52] | Fernandes, A. C., & Garcia-Marques, T. (2020). A meta- analytical review of the familiarity temporal effect: Testing assumptions of the attentional and the fluency-attributional accounts. Psychological Bulletin, 146(3), 187-217. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000222 |
[53] | Fischhoff, B., & Broomell, S. B. (2020). Judgment and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 71(1), 331-355. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050747 |
[54] |
* Fletcher, K., Parker, G. B., & Manicavasagar, V. (2013). Coping profiles in bipolar disorder. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 54(8), 1177-1184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2013.05.011
doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2013.05.011 URL pmid: 23810079 |
[55] |
* Frangou, S., Kington, J., Raymont, V., & Shergill, S. S. (2008). Examining ventral and dorsal prefrontal function in bipolar disorder: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. European Psychiatry, 23(4), 300-308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2007.05.002
URL pmid: 17656073 |
[56] | Frey, R., Pedroni, A., Mata, R., Rieskamp, J., & Hertwig, R. (2017). Risk preference shares the psychometric structure of major psychological traits. Science Advances, 3(10), e1701381. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1701381 |
[57] |
Gao, S., Assink, M., Cipriani, A., & Lin, K. (2017). Associations between rejection sensitivity and mental health outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 57, 59-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2017.08.007
doi: S0272-7358(17)30122-8 URL pmid: 28841457 |
[58] |
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., … Yamaguchi, S. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332(6033), 1100-1104. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1197754
doi: 10.1126/science.1197754 URL pmid: 21617077 |
[59] |
* Goldberg, J. F., Wenze, S. J., Welker, T. M., Steer, R. A., & Beck, A. T. (2005). Content‐specificity of dysfunctional cognitions for patients with bipolar mania versus unipolar depression: A preliminary study. Bipolar Disorders, 7(1), 49-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-5618.2004.00165.x
URL pmid: 15654932 |
[60] |
* Gomide Vasconcelos, A., Sergeant, J., Corrêa, H., Mattos, P., & Malloy-Diniz, L. (2014). When self-report diverges from performance: The usage of BIS-11 along with neuropsychological tests. Psychiatry Research, 218(1-2), 236-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2014.03.002
doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2014.03.002 URL pmid: 24726025 |
[61] | * Gu, Y. T., Zhou, C., Yang, J., Zhang, Q., Zhu, G. H., Sun, L., Ge, M. H., & Wang, Y. Y. (2020). A transdiagnostic comparison of affective decision‐making in patients with schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, or bipolar disorder. PsyCh Journal, 9(2), 199-209. https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.351 |
[62] |
* Haatveit, B., Westlye, L. T., Vaskinn, A., Flaaten, C. B., Mohn, C., Bjella, T., ... Ueland, T. (2023). Intra- and inter-individual cognitive variability in schizophrenia and bipolar spectrum disorder: An investigation across multiple cognitive domains. Schizophrenia, 9(1), 89. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41537-023-00414-4
doi: 10.1038/s41537-023-00414-4 URL pmid: 38110366 |
[63] |
* Hariri, A. G., Karadag, F., Gokalp, P., & Essizoglu, A. (2011). Risky sexual behavior among patients in Turkey with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and heroin addiction. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 8(8), 2284-2291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02282.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02282.x URL pmid: 21492406 |
[64] |
* Hart, K. L., Brown, H. E., Roffman, J. L., & Perlis, R. H. (2019). Risk tolerance measured by probability discounting among individuals with primary mood and psychotic disorders. Neuropsychology, 33(3), 417-424. https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000506
doi: 10.1037/neu0000506 URL pmid: 30688494 |
[65] |
Hartshorne, J. K., & Germine, L. T. (2015). When does cognitive functioning peak? The asynchronous rise and fall of different cognitive abilities across the life span. Psychological Science, 26(4), 433-443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614567339
doi: 10.1177/0956797614567339 URL pmid: 25770099 |
[66] |
Hershenberg, R., Satterthwaite, T. D., Daldal, A., Katchmar, N., Moore, T. M., Kable, J. W., & Wolf, D. H. (2016). Diminished effort on a progressive ratio task in both unipolar and bipolar depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 196, 97-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.02.003
doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2016.02.003 URL pmid: 26919058 |
[67] |
Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., & Erev, I. (2004). Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science, 15(8), 534-539. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00715.x
doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00715.x URL pmid: 15270998 |
[68] | * Hıdıroğlu, C., Esen, Ö. D., Tunca, Z., Yalçìn, Ş. N. G., Lombardo, L., Glahn, D. C., & Özerdem, A. (2013). Can risk-taking be an endophenotype for bipolar disorder? A study on patients with bipolar disorder type I and their first-degree relatives. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 19(4), 474-482. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617713000015 |
[69] |
* Holmes, M. K., Bearden, C. E., Barguil, M., Fonseca, M., Monkul, E. S., Nery, F. G., … Glahn, D. C. (2009). Conceptualizing impulsivity and risk taking in bipolar disorder: Importance of history of alcohol abuse. Bipolar Disorders, 11(1), 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-5618.2008.00657.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1399-5618.2008.00657.x URL pmid: 19133964 |
[70] | Hosker-Field, A. M., Molnar, D. S., & Book, A. S. (2016). Psychopathy and risk taking: Examining the role of risk perception. Personality and Individual Differences, 91, 123-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.059 |
[71] | Hox, J. J., Moerbeek, M., & van de Schoot, R. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Routledge. |
[72] | Hsee, C., & Weber, E. U. (1999). Cross-national differences in risk preference and lay predictions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(2), 165-179. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199906)12:2<165::AID-BDM316>3.0.CO;2-N |
[73] | Huang, Y., Wang, Y., Wang, H., Liu, Z., Yu, X., Yan, J., … Wu, Y. (2019). Prevalence of mental disorders in China: A cross-sectional epidemiological study. The Lancet Psychiatry, 6(3), 211-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30511-X |
[74] | * Ibanez, A., Cetkovich, M., Petroni, A., Urquina, H., Baez, S., Gonzalez-Gadea, M. L., ... Manes, F. (2012). The neural basis of decision-making and reward processing in adults with euthymic bipolar disorder or attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). PloS One, 7(5), e37306. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037306 |
[75] | Isen, A. M., & Patrick, R. (1983). The effect of positive feelings on risk taking: When the chips are down. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31(2), 194-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(83)90120-4 |
[76] | Ji, C. Y. (2007). Adolescent health risk behavior. Chinese Journal of School Health, 28(4), 289-291. |
[季成叶. (2007). 青少年健康危险行为. 中国学校卫生, 28(4), 289-291.] | |
[77] |
* Ji, S., Ma, H., Yao, M., Guo, M., Li, S., Chen, N., ... Hu, B. (2021). Aberrant temporal variability in brain regions during risk decision making in patients with bipolar I disorder: A dynamic effective connectivity study. Neuroscience, 469, 68-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2021.06.024
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2021.06.024 URL pmid: 34153355 |
[78] | Jia, Z., Jin, Y., Zhang, L., Wang, Z., & Lu, Z. (2018). Prevalence of drug use among students in mainland China: A systematic review and meta-analysis for 2003-2013. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 186, 201-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.12.047 |
[79] | * Jogia, J., Dima, D., Kumari, V., & Frangou, S. (2012). Frontopolar cortical inefficiency may underpin reward and working memory dysfunction in bipolar disorder. The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry, 13(8), 605-615. https://doi.org/10.3109/15622975.2011.585662 |
[80] |
John, A., Patel, U., Rusted, J., Richards, M., & Gaysina, D. (2019). Affective problems and decline in cognitive state in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Medicine, 49(3), 353-365. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291718001137
doi: 10.1017/S0033291718001137 URL pmid: 29792244 |
[81] | Johnson, E. J., & Tversky, A. (1983). Affect, generalization, and the perception of risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 20-31. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.20 |
[82] |
Josef, A. K., Richter, D., Samanez-Larkin, G. R., Wagner, G. G., Hertwig, R., & Mata, R. (2016). Stability and change in risk-taking propensity across the adult life span. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(3), 430-450. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000090
doi: 10.1037/pspp0000090 URL pmid: 26820061 |
[83] | Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-292. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185 |
[84] |
Kandel, D. B., Adler, I., & Sudit, M. (1981). The epidemiology of adolescent drug use in France and Israel. American Journal of Public Health, 71(3), 256-265. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.71.3.256
URL pmid: 7468857 |
[85] | Kathawalla, U., & Syed, M. (2021). Discrimination, life stress, and mental health among Muslims: A preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis. Collabra: Psychology, 7(1), 28248. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.28248 |
[86] | Katz, B. A., Naftalovich, H., Matanky, K., & Yovel, I. (2021). The dual-system theory of bipolar spectrum disorders: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 83, 101945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101945 |
[87] | Kepes, S., & Thomas, M. A. (2018). Assessing the robustness of meta-analytic results in information systems: Publication bias and outliers. European Journal of Information Systems, 27(1), 90-123. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2017.1390188 |
[88] |
* Kollmann, B., Scholz, V., Linke, J., Kirsch, P., & Wessa, M. (2017). Reward anticipation revisited- evidence from an fMRI study in euthymic bipolar I patients and healthy first-degree relatives. Journal of Affective Disorders, 219, 178-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.04.044
doi: S0165-0327(16)31671-8 URL pmid: 28558365 |
[89] | * Kollmann, B., Yuen, K., Scholz, V., & Wessa, M. (2019). Cognitive variability in bipolar I disorder: A cluster- analytic approach informed by resting-state data. Neuropharmacology, 156, 107585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2019.03.028 |
[90] |
Krantz, M., Goldstein, T., Rooks, B., Merranko, J., Liao, F., Gill, M. K., ... Birmaher, B. (2018). Sexual risk behavior among youth with bipolar disorder: Identifying demographic and clinical risk factors. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 57(2), 118-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2017.11.015
doi: S0890-8567(17)31865-8 URL pmid: 29413144 |
[91] | * Lamy, M. (2009). Neural correlates of impulsivity and risk taking in bipolar disorder [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Cincinnati. |
[92] |
Lapomarda, G., Pappaianni, E., Siugzdaite, R., Sanfey, A. G., Rumiati, R. I., & Grecucci, A. (2021). Out of control: An altered parieto-occipital-cerebellar network for impulsivity in bipolar disorder. Behavioural Brain Research, 406, 113228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2021.113228
doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2021.113228 URL pmid: 33684426 |
[93] | Lasagna, C. A., Pleskac, T. J., Burton, C. Z., McInnis, M. G., Taylor, S. F., & Tso, I. F. (2022). Mathematical modeling of risk-taking in bipolar disorder: Evidence of reduced behavioral consistency, with altered loss aversion specific to those with history of substance use disorder. Computational Psychiatry, 6(1), 96-116. https://doi.org/10.5334/cpsy.61 |
[94] | * Le, V., Kirsch, D. E., Tretyak, V., Weber, W., Strakowski, S. M., & Lippard, E. T. C. (2021). Recent perceived stress, amygdala reactivity to acute psychosocial stress, and alcohol and cannabis use in adolescents and young adults with bipolar disorder. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, 767309. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.767309 |
[95] | Lejuez, C. W., Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Richards, J. B., Ramsey, S. E., Stuart, G. L., Strong, D. R., & Brown, R. A. (2002). Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: The Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8(2), 75-84. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-898x.8.2.75 |
[96] |
* Levy, B. (2013). Autonomic nervous system arousal and cognitive functioning in bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disorders, 15(1), 70-79. https://doi.org/10.1111/bdi.12028
doi: 10.1111/bdi.12028 URL pmid: 23237079 |
[97] |
Lewandowski, K. E., Sperry, S. H., Malloy, M. C., & Forester, B. P. (2014). Age as a predictor of cognitive decline in bipolar disorder. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 22(12), 1462-1468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2013.10.002
doi: 10.1016/j.jagp.2013.10.002 URL pmid: 24262287 |
[98] |
* Linke, J., King, A. V., Poupon, C., Hennerici, M. G., Gass, A., & Wessa, M. (2013). Impaired anatomical connectivity and related executive functions: Differentiating vulnerability and disease marker in bipolar disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 74(12), 908-916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.04.010
doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.04.010 URL pmid: 23684382 |
[99] |
* Lippard, E. T. C., Kirsch, D. E., Kosted, R., Le, V., Almeida, J. R. C., Fromme, K., & Strakowski, S. M. (2023). Subjective response to alcohol in young adults with bipolar disorder and recent alcohol use: A within-subject randomized placebo-controlled alcohol administration study. Psychopharmacology, 240(4), 739-753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-023-06315-9
doi: 10.1007/s00213-023-06315-9 URL pmid: 36695842 |
[100] | Lu, J., Zhao, X., Wei, X., & He, G. (2024). Risky decision- making in major depressive disorder: A three-level meta- analysis. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 24(1), 100417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2023.100417 |
[101] |
Lukacs, J. N., Sicilia, A. C., Jones, S., & Algorta, G. P. (2021). Interactions and implications of Fuzzy-trace theory for risk taking behaviors in bipolar disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders, 293, 305-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.06.035
doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2021.06.035 URL pmid: 34229283 |
[102] | Lüdecke, D. (2019). ESC: Effect size computation for meta analysis (Version 0.5.1). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=esc. |
[103] |
* Malloy-Diniz, L. F., Neves, F. S., Abrantes, S. S. C., Fuentes, D., & Corrêa, H. (2009). Suicide behavior and neuropsychological assessment of type I bipolar patients. Journal of Affective Disorders, 112(1-3), 231-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2008.03.019
doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2008.03.019 URL pmid: 18485487 |
[104] |
* Malloy-Diniz, L. F., Neves, F. S., de Moraes, P. H. P., De Marco, L. A., Romano-Silva, M. A., Krebs, M. O., & Corrêa, H. (2011). The 5-HTTLPR polymorphism, impulsivity and suicide behavior in euthymic bipolar patients. Journal of Affective Disorders, 133(1-2), 221-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2011.03.051
doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2011.03.051 URL pmid: 21550122 |
[105] |
Mann-Wrobel, M. C., Carreno, J. T., & Dickinson, D. (2011). Meta-analysis of neuropsychological functioning in euthymic bipolar disorder: An update and investigation of moderator variables. Bipolar Disorders, 13(4), 334-342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-5618.2011.00935.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1399-5618.2011.00935.x URL pmid: 21843273 |
[106] |
* Marengo, E., Martino, D. J., Igoa, A., Fassi, G., Scápola, M., Baamonde, M. U., & Strejilevich, S. A. (2015). Sexual risk behaviors among women with bipolar disorder. Psychiatry Research, 230(3), 835-838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2015.10.021
doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2015.10.021 URL pmid: 26564549 |
[107] |
* Martin, K., Woo, J., Timmins, V., Collins, J., Islam, A., Newton, D., & Goldstein, B. I. (2016). Binge eating and emotional eating behaviors among adolescents and young adults with bipolar disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders, 195, 88-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.02.030
doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2016.02.030 URL pmid: 26890288 |
[108] |
* Martino, D. J., & Strejilevich, S. A. (2014). A comparison of decision making in patients with bipolar i disorder and schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 156(1), 135-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2014.03.019
doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2014.03.019 URL pmid: 24735784 |
[109] |
* Martino, D. J., Strejilevich, S. A., Torralva, T., & Manes, F. (2011). Decision making in euthymic bipolar I and bipolar II disorders. Psychological Medicine, 41(6), 1319-1327. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291710001832
doi: 10.1017/S0033291710001832 URL pmid: 20860871 |
[110] | * Martyn, F. M., McPhilemy, G., Nabulsi, L., Quirke, J., Hallahan, B., McDonald, C., & Cannon, D. M. (2023). Alcohol use is associated with affective and interoceptive network alterations in bipolar disorder. Brain and Behavior, 13(1), e2832. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.2832 |
[111] | * Mason, L., O'Sullivan, N., Montaldi, D., Bentall, R. P., & El-Deredy, W. (2014). Decision-making and trait impulsivity in bipolar disorder are associated with reduced prefrontal regulation of striatal reward valuation. Brain, 137(8), 2346-2355. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awu152 |
[112] | Meertens, R. M., & Lion, R. (2008). Measuring an individual's tendency to take risks: The risk propensity scale. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(6), 1506-1520. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00357.x |
[113] | Mellers, B., Schwartz, A., & Ritov, I. (1999). Emotion-based choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128(3), 332-345. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.128.3.332 |
[114] |
Merikangas, K. R., Jin, R., He, J. P., Kessler, R. C., Lee, S., Sampson, N. A., ... Zarkov, Z. (2011). Prevalence and correlates of bipolar spectrum disorder in the world mental health survey initiative. Archives of General Psychiatry, 68(3), 241-251. https://doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.12
doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.12 URL pmid: 21383262 |
[115] |
Miklowitz, D. J., & Johnson, S. L. (2006). The psychopathology and treatment of bipolar disorder. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 2, 199-235. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.2.022305.095332
URL pmid: 17716069 |
[116] |
Miller, J. N., & Black, D. W. (2020). Bipolar disorder and suicide: A review. Current Psychiatry Reports, 22(2), 6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-020-1130-0
doi: 10.1007/s11920-020-1130-0 URL pmid: 31955273 |
[117] |
* Murphy, F. C., Rubinsztein, J. S., Michael, A., Rogers, R. D., Robbins, T. W., Paykel, E. S., & Sahakian, B. J. (2001). Decision-making cognition in mania and depression. Psychological Medicine, 31(4), 679-693. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/s0033291701003804
URL pmid: 11352370 |
[118] |
* Naiberg, M. R., Newton, D. F., Collins, J. E., Bowie, C. R., & Goldstein, B. I. (2016). Impulsivity is associated with blood pressure and waist circumference among adolescents with bipolar disorder. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 83, 230-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2016.08.019
doi: S0022-3956(16)30282-5 URL pmid: 27665535 |
[119] | National Institutes of Health. (2014). Study quality assessment tools. Retrieved from: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools |
[120] | * Obeid, S., Chok, A., Sacre, H., Haddad, C., Tahan, F., Ghanem, L., Azar, J., & Hallit, S. (2021). Are eating disorders associated with bipolar disorder type I? Results of a Lebanese case-control study. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 57(1), 326-334. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppc.12567 |
[121] | * Ono, Y., Kikuchi, M., Hirosawa, T., Hino, S., Nagasawa, T., Hashimoto, T., Munesue, T., & Minabe, Y. (2015). Reduced prefrontal activation during performance of the Iowa Gambling Task in patients with bipolar disorder. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 233(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2015.04.003 |
[122] | Pålsson, E., Figueras, C., Johansson, A. G., Ekman, C. J., Hultman, B., Östlind, J., & Landén, M. (2013). Neurocognitive function in bipolar disorder: A comparison between bipolar I and II disorder and matched controls. BMC Psychiatry, 13(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-13-165 |
[123] | Paluckaitė, U., & Žardeckaitė-Matulaitienė, K. (2017). Adolescents' perception of risky behaviour on the Internet. In Z. Bekirogullari, M. Y. Minas, & R. X. Thambusamy (Eds.), Health and Health Psychology - icH&Hpsy 2017, Vol 30. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 284-292). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2017.09.27 |
[124] |
* Pavlickova, H., Turnbull, O., & Bentall, R. P. (2014). Cognitive vulnerability to bipolar disorder in offspring of parents with bipolar disorder. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53(4), 386-401. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12051
doi: 10.1111/bjc.12051 URL pmid: 24749716 |
[125] | Plana-Ripoll, O., Weye, N., Knudsen, A. K., Hakulinen, C., Madsen, K. B., Christensen, M. K., ... McGrath, J. J. (2023). The association between mental disorders and subsequent years of working life: A Danish population-based cohort study. The Lancet Psychiatry, 10(1), 30-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00376-5 |
[126] |
Plans, L., Barrot, C., Nieto, E., Rios, J., Schulze, T. G., Papiol, S., ... Benabarre, A. (2019). Association between completed suicide and bipolar disorder: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Affective Disorders, 242, 111-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.08.054
doi: S0165-0327(18)30514-7 URL pmid: 30173059 |
[127] | Pleskac, T. J. (2008). Decision making and learning while taking sequential risks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(1), 167-185. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.167 |
[128] |
* Powers, R. L., Russo, M., Mahon, K., Brand, J., Braga, R. J., Malhotra, A. K., & Burdick, K. E. (2013). Impulsivity in bipolar disorder: Relationships with neurocognitive dysfunction and substance use history. Bipolar Disorders, 15(8), 876-884. https://doi.org/10.1111/bdi.12124
doi: 10.1111/bdi.12124 URL pmid: 24028391 |
[129] | Prietzel, T. T. (2020). The effect of emotion on risky decision making in the context of prospect theory: A comprehensive literature review. Management Review Quarterly, 70, 313-353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-019-00169-2 |
[130] |
Rai, S., Mishra, B. R., Sarkar, S., Praharaj, S. K., Das, S., Maiti, R., Agrawal, N., & Nizami, S. H. (2018). Higher impulsivity and HIV-risk taking behaviour in males with alcohol dependence compared to bipolar mania: A pilot study. Community Mental Health Journal, 54(2), 218-223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-017-0139-2
doi: 10.1007/s10597-017-0139-2 URL pmid: 28456858 |
[131] | Ramírez-Martín, A., Ramos-Martín, J., Mayoral-Cleries, F., Moreno-Küstner, B., & Guzman-Parra, J. (2020). Impulsivity, decision-making and risk-taking behaviour in bipolar disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Medicine, 50(13), 2141-2153. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291720003086 |
[132] | * Ramírez-Martín, A., Sirignano, L., Streit, F., Foo, J. C., Forstner, A. J., Frank, J., ... Guzmán-Parra, J. (2024). Impulsivity, decision-making, and risk behavior in bipolar disorder and major depression from bipolar multiplex families. Brain and Behavior, 14(2), e3337. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.3337 |
[133] |
* Reddy, L. F., Lee, J., Davis, M. C., Altshuler, L., Glahn, D. C., Miklowitz, D. J., & Green, M. F. (2014). Impulsivity and risk taking in bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Neuropsychopharmacology, 39(2), 456-463. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2013.218
doi: 10.1038/npp.2013.218 URL pmid: 23963117 |
[134] | Reyna, V. F., Weldon, R. B., & McCormick, M. (2015). Educating intuition: Reducing risky decisions using Fuzzy- trace theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(5), 392-398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415588081 |
[135] |
* Richard-Devantoy, S., Olié, E., Guillaume, S., & Courtet, P. (2016). Decision-making in unipolar or bipolar suicide attempters. Journal of Affective Disorders, 190, 128-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2015.10.001
doi: S0165-0327(15)30827-2 URL pmid: 26496018 |
[136] |
Richards, J. B., Zhang, L., Mitchell, S. H., & de Wit, H. (1999). Delay or probability discounting in a model of impulsive behavior: Effect of alcohol. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 71(2), 121-143. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1999.71-121
doi: 10.1901/jeab.1999.71-121 URL pmid: 10220927 |
[137] |
Rivers, S. E., Reyna, V. F., & Mills, B. (2008). Risk taking under the influence: A Fuzzy-trace theory of emotion in adolescence. Developmental Review, 28(1), 107-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.11.002
doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2007.11.002 URL pmid: 19255597 |
[138] | Roberts, D. K., Alderson, R. M., Betancourt, J. L., & Bullard, C. C. (2021). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and risk-taking: A three-level meta-analytic review of behavioral, self-report, and virtual reality metrics. Clinical Psychology Review, 87, 102039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102039 |
[139] | Rodgers, M. A., & Pustejovsky, J. E. (2020). Evaluating meta-analytic methods to detect selective reporting in the presence of dependent effect sizes. Psychological Methods, 26(2), 141-160. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000300 |
[140] |
* Rubinsztein, J. S., Michael, A., Underwood, B. R., Tempest, M., & Sahakian, B. J. (2006). Impaired cognition and decision-making in bipolar depression but no 'affective bias' evident. Psychological Medicine, 36(5), 629-639. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291705006689
doi: 10.1017/S0033291705006689 URL pmid: 16420729 |
[141] | * Salarvan, S., Sparding, T., Clements, C., Rydén, E., & Landén, M. (2019). Neuropsychological profiles of adult bipolar disorder patients with and without comorbid attention- deficit hyperactivity disorder. International Journal of Bipolar Disorders, 7(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40345-019-0149-9 |
[142] |
* Saunders, K. E., Goodwin, G. M., & Rogers, R. D. (2016). Insensitivity to the magnitude of potential gains or losses when making risky choices: Women with borderline personality disorder compared with bipolar disorder and controls. Journal of Personality Disorders, 30(4), 530-544. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2015_29_216
doi: 10.1521/pedi_2015_29_216 URL pmid: 26623536 |
[143] | * Saxena, K., Simonetti, A., Verrico, C. D., Janiri, D., Nicola, M. D., Catinari, A., ... Soares, J. C. (2023). Neurocognitive correlates of cerebellar volumetric alterations in youth with pediatric bipolar spectrum disorders and bipolar offspring. Current Neuropharmacology, 21(6), 1367-1378. https://doi.org/10.2174/1570159X21666221014120332 |
[144] |
Schaffer, A., Isometsä, E. T., Tondo, L., Moreno, D. H., Turecki, G., Reis, C., ... Yatham, L. N. (2015). International society for bipolar disorders task force on suicide: Meta-analyses and meta-regression of correlates of suicide attempts and suicide deaths in bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disorders, 17(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/bdi.12271
doi: 10.1111/bdi.12271 URL pmid: 25329791 |
[145] |
* Scholz, V., Houenou, J., Kollmann, B., Duclap, D., Poupon, C., & Wessa, M. (2016). Dysfunctional decision-making related to white matter alterations in bipolar i disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders, 194, 72-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2015.12.019
doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2015.12.019 URL pmid: 26803778 |
[146] | Sicilia, A. C., Lukacs, J. N., Jones, S., & Perez Algorta, G. (2020). Decision-making and risk in bipolar disorder: A quantitative study using fuzzy trace theory. Psychology and Psychotherapy, 93(1), 105-121. https://doi.org/10.1111/papt.12215 |
[147] |
* Simonetti, A., Kurian, S., Saxena, J., Verrico, C. D., Soares, J. C., Sani, G., & Saxena, K. (2021). Cognitive correlates of impulsive aggression in youth with pediatric bipolar disorder and bipolar offspring. Journal of Affective Disorders, 287, 387-396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.03.044
doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2021.03.044 URL pmid: 33838473 |
[148] | Sparding, T., Silander, K., Pålsson, E., Östlind, J., Sellgren, C., Ekman, C. J., ... Landén, M. (2015). Cognitive functioning in clinically stable patients with bipolar disorder I and II. PloS One, 10(1), e0115562. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115562 |
[149] |
* Taylor Tavares, J. V., Clark, L., Cannon, D. M., Erickson, K., Drevets, W. C., & Sahakian, B. J. (2007). Distinct profiles of neurocognitive function in unmedicated unipolar depression and bipolar II depression. Biological Psychiatry, 62(8), 917-924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.05.034
doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.05.034 URL pmid: 17825802 |
[150] |
* Thomas, J., Knowles, R., Tai, S., & Bentall, R. P. (2007). Response styles to depressed mood in bipolar affective disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders, 100(1-3), 249-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2006.10.017
URL pmid: 17134763 |
[151] |
Tinner, L., Caldwell, D., Hickman, M., MacArthur, G. J., Gottfredson, D., Lana Perez, A., ... Campbell, R. (2018). Examining subgroup effects by socioeconomic status of public health interventions targeting multiple risk behaviour in adolescence. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 1180. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6042-0
doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-6042-0 URL pmid: 30326897 |
[152] |
Torrent, C., Martinez-Arán, A., Daban, C., Amann, B., Balanzá-Martínez, V., del Mar Bonnín, C., ... Vieta, E. (2011). Effects of atypical antipsychotics on neurocognition in euthymic bipolar patients. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 52(6), 613-622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2010.12.009
doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2010.12.009 URL pmid: 21295774 |
[153] |
* Urošević, S., Youngstrom, E. A., Collins, P., Jensen, J. B., & Luciana, M. (2016). Associations of age with reward delay discounting and response inhibition in adolescents with bipolar disorders. Journal of Affective Disorders, 190, 649-656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2015.11.005
doi: S0165-0327(15)30771-0 URL pmid: 26590512 |
[154] |
* Vancampfort, D., Hagemann, N., Wyckaert, S., Rosenbaum, S., Stubbs, B., Firth, J., ... Sienaert, P. (2017). Higher cardio-respiratory fitness is associated with increased mental and physical quality of life in people with bipolar disorder: A controlled pilot study. Psychiatry Research, 256, 219-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.06.066
doi: S0165-1781(17)30385-2 URL pmid: 28646785 |
[155] |
* Vancampfort, D., Sienaert, P., Wyckaert, S., De Hert, M., Stubbs, B., Soundy, A., De Smet, J., & Probst, M. (2015). Health-related physical fitness in patients with bipolar disorder vs. healthy controls: An exploratory study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 177, 22-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.12.058
doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2014.12.058 URL pmid: 25745831 |
[156] |
* van Enkhuizen, J., Henry, B. L., Minassian, A., Perry, W., Milienne-Petiot, M., Higa, K. K., Geyer, M. A., & Young, J. W. (2014). Reduced dopamine transporter functioning induces high-reward risk-preference consistent with bipolar disorder. Neuropsychopharmacology, 39(13), 3112-3122. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2014.170
doi: 10.1038/npp.2014.170 URL pmid: 25005251 |
[157] | Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1-48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03 |
[158] | Wang, X. T., Zheng, R., Xuan, Y. H., Chen, J., & Li, S. (2016). Not all risks are created equal: A twin study and meta-analyses of risk taking across seven domains. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(11), 1548-1560. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000225 |
[159] | Wei, G. X., Kan, B., Wu, J., & Wang, K. (2018). Decision- making behavior in manic and euthymic bipolar disorder under uncertain risk conditions. Journal of Chifeng University (Natural Science Edition), 34(8), 97-101. https://doi.org/10.13398/j.cnki.issn1673-260x.2018.08.035 |
[魏格欣, 阚博, 吴娟, 汪凯. (2018). 躁狂期和缓解期双相情感障碍患者在风险不明确情境下决策行为的研究与探讨. 赤峰学院学报(自然科学版), 34(8), 97-101. https://doi.org/10.13398/j.cnki.issn1673-260x.2018.08.035 ] | |
[160] |
* Williams, S. C., Davey-Rothwell, M. A., Tobin, K. E., & Latkin, C. (2017). People who inject drugs and have mood disorders—A brief assessment of health risk behaviors. Substance Use and Misuse, 52(9), 1181-1190. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2017.1302954
doi: 10.1080/10826084.2017.1302954 URL pmid: 28574740 |
[161] | * Wong, S. C. Y., Ng, M. C. M., Chan, J. K. N., Luk, M. S. K., Lui, S. S. Y., Chen, E. Y. H., & Chang, W. C. (2021). Altered risk-taking behavior in early-stage bipolar disorder with a history of psychosis. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.763545 |
[162] | World Health Organization (WHO). (2022). Mental disorders. Retrieved Feb 12, 2023, from https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare/ |
[163] |
Xu, S. H., Fang, Z., & Rao, H. Y. (2013). Real or hypothetical monetary rewards modulates risk taking behavior. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 45(8), 874-886. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2013.00874
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2013.00874 URL |
[徐四华, 方卓, 饶恒毅. (2013). 真实和虚拟金钱奖赏影响风险决策行为. 心理学报, 45(8), 874-886. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2013.00874] | |
[164] |
* Yechiam, E., Hayden, E. P., Bodkins, M., O'Donnell, B. F., & Hetrick, W. P. (2008). Decision making in bipolar disorder: A cognitive modeling approach. Psychiatry Research, 161(2), 142-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2007.07.001
doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2007.07.001 URL pmid: 18848361 |
[165] | Yue, L. Z., Li, S., & Liang, Z. Y. (2018). New avenues for the development of domain-specific nature of risky decision making. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(5), 928-938. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.00928 |
[岳灵紫, 李纾, 梁竹苑. (2018). 风险决策中的领域特异性. 心理科学进展, 26(5), 928-938. https://doi.org/10.3724/ SP.J.1042.2018.00928 ]
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.00928 URL |
|
[166] | Zeng, B. E. (2019). The relationship between college students' suicide behavior and risk decision-making [Unpublished master's thesis]. Southern Medical University, Guangzhou. |
[曾宝尔. (2019). 大学生自杀行为与风险决策的关系研究 (硕士学位论文). 南方医科大学, 广州.] | |
[167] |
Zhang, D. C., Highhouse, S., & Nye, C. D. (2019). Development and validation of the general risk propensity scale (GRiPS). Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 32(2), 152-167. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2102
doi: 10.1002/bdm.2102 URL |
[168] | Zhu. C., G. (2020). Analysis of the investment risk preference of bipolar disorder-mania patients in remission and healthy first-degree relatives (siblings) [Unpublished master's thesis]. Anhui Medical University, China. |
[朱承刚. (2020). 缓解期双相躁狂患者及其健康一级亲属(同胞)投资风险偏好的研究 (硕士学位论文). 安徽医科大学.] | |
[169] | Zhu, Q., Liang, W. J., Zhang, G. C., Wu, X. H., & Guan, N. H. (2019). Social cognition and its impact on social functioning in patients with euthymic bipolar disorder. Guangdong Medical Journal, 40(18), 2671-2677. https://doi.org/10.13820/j.cnki.gdyx.20190901 |
[朱麒, 梁文靖, 张桂灿, 吴秀华, 关念红. (2019). 缓解期双相障碍患者社会认知及对社会功能的影响. 广东医学, 40(18), 2671-2677. https://doi.org/10.13820/j.cnki.gdyx.20190901] | |
[170] |
Bechara, A., Damasio, A. R., Damasio, H. & Anderson, S. W. (1994). Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition, 50(1-3), 7-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3
doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3 URL pmid: 8039375 |
[171] |
Rogers, R. D., Everitt, B. J., Baldacchino, A., Blackshaw, A. J., Swainson, R., Wynne, K., ... 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
doi: 10.1016/S0893-133X(98)00091-8 URL pmid: 10088133 |
[1] | 林荣茂, 余巧华, 胡添祥, 张九妹, 叶玉珊, 连榕. 敬畏感与亲社会行为关系的三水平和结构方程模型元分析[J]. 心理学报, 2025, 57(4): 631-651. |
[2] | 李春好, 刘荣媛, 刘远豪. 经典和对偶共结果效应对前景集结果区间的依赖性:基于概率权重的视角[J]. 心理学报, 2025, 57(3): 398-414. |
[3] | 苑明亮, 伍俊辉, 金淑娴, 林靓, 寇彧, Paul A. M. Van Lange. 中国社会陌生人之间合作行为的变迁:基于社会困境研究的元分析(1999~2019)[J]. 心理学报, 2024, 56(9): 1159-1175. |
[4] | 王祥坤, 辛自强, 侯友. 我国大中学生道德推脱水平的变迁及宏观成因[J]. 心理学报, 2024, 56(7): 859-875. |
[5] | 侯娟, 贾可可, 方晓义. 近20年中国夫妻婚姻满意度发展趋势与社会变迁[J]. 心理学报, 2024, 56(7): 895-910. |
[6] | 尹华站, 肖春花, 夏安妮, 袁中静, 崔晓冰, 李丹. 基本情绪对时距知觉的影响: 来自三水平元分析和网络元分析的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2024, 56(12): 1676-1690. |
[7] | 孟现鑫, 俞德霖, 陈怡静, 张玲, 傅小兰. 儿童期创伤与共情的关系:一项三水平元分析[J]. 心理学报, 2023, 55(8): 1285-1300. |
[8] | 李超平, 孟雪, 胥彦, 蓝媛美. 家庭支持型主管行为对员工的影响与作用机制:基于元分析的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2023, 55(2): 257-271. |
[9] | 靳娟娟, 邵蕾, 黄潇潇, 张亚利, 俞国良. 社会排斥与攻击的关系:一项元分析[J]. 心理学报, 2023, 55(12): 1979-1996. |
[10] | 孙亚茹, 刘泽军, 段亚杰, 陈宁, 刘伟. 协作如何减少记忆错误:一项元分析研究[J]. 心理学报, 2023, 55(11): 1780-1792. |
[11] | 陈必忠, 黄璇, 牛更枫, 孙晓军, 蔡志慧. 学步期至青年期社交焦虑的发展轨迹和稳定性:一项基于纵向研究的三水平元分析[J]. 心理学报, 2023, 55(10): 1637-1652. |
[12] | 廖友国, 陈建文, 张妍, 彭聪. 儿童青少年同伴侵害与内化问题的双向关系: 纵向研究的元分析[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(7): 828-849. |
[13] | 蓝媛美, 李超平, 王佳燕, 孟雪. 员工跨界行为的收益与代价:元分析的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(6): 665-683. |
[14] | 刘洪志, 李兴珊, 李纾, 饶俪琳. 基于期望值最大化的理论何时失效:风险决策中为自己-为所有人决策差异的眼动研究[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(12): 1517-1531. |
[15] | 辛素飞, 梁鑫, 盛靓, 赵智睿. 我国内地教师主观幸福感的变迁(2002~2019):横断历史研究的视角[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(8): 875-889. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||