本研究采用GDT+n-back 双任务范式，考察认知资源和感觉寻求对风险决策的影响。实验采用3（认知资源：高/ 中/ 低） × 2（感觉寻求：高/ 低）被试间设计。结果发现，低感觉寻求组中，低认知资源条件下的风险决策绩效显著高于高（或中）认知资源条件下的绩效；而高感觉寻求组中，风险决策绩效在三种认知资源条件下无显著差异。结果表明，低感觉寻求者风险决策在认知资源不足时表现出直觉加工优势；而高感觉寻求者风险决策没有直觉加工优势。

Although most of the researchers believe that the intuitive-experience system is the cause of various irrational biases in decision-making, there are more and more researchers who emphasize the advantages of the intuitive-experience system. Previous studies used GDT+n-back dual-task paradigm to explore the relationship between intuitive-experience system and rational-analytical system in decision-making under risk. However, the results had certain contradictions. Some research found that the decision-making performance had been improved when decision-making is accompanied with an n-back task, indicating that there was an advantage of intuitive processing when cognitive resources were limited. Whereas some research found that the decision-making performance had been impaired when decision-making is accompanied with an n-back task, indicating that there was no advantage of intuitive processing when cognitive resources were limited. In the current study, we believe that sensation-seeking explains such differences in decision-making. Many studies have shown that there is a relationship between sensation-seeking and individual differences in decision-making. High sensation-seekers rely more on emotional heuristics for risk judgement. Thus, the present research aims to explore whether cognitive resources modulate decision-making under risk among different levels of sensation-seekers.

According to the scores of sensation-seeking questionnaires, 150 of 1386 college students were selected to participate in the experiment. There were 75 people (29 males and 46 females) in the low sensation-seeking group, with an average age of 21.56±1.88. There were 75 people (23 males and 52 females) in the high sensation-seeking group, with an average age of 20.83±1.48. The experiment employed a 3 (cognitive resources: high/medium/ low) × 2 (sensation-seeking: high/low) between-subjects design. We used n-back task to manipulate cognitive resources. The high level of cognitive resources referred to those who finished single GDT task; The medium level of cognitive resources referred to those who finished GDT+1-back task; And the low level of cognitive resources referred to those who finished GDT+2-back task. The specific manipulation procedure was as follows: Firstly, according to the scores of sensation-seeking questionnaires, participants were divided into low (the first 20% and scores below 38) and high (the last 20% and scores higher 52) sensation seeking groups. Then, participants were randomly divided into three decision groups (GDT, GDT+1-back, and GDT+2-back). Each group included 50 people. Gender, age, and sensation-seeking were all counterbalanced across three different decision-making groups. Participants in each condition were instructed to conduct the specific decision-making task (GDT/GDT+1-back/GDT+2-back). In the formal experiment, each group completed three rounds of the corresponding decision-making task. Each round of task included 18 trials of decision-making. After completing each round, the subjects had enough time to rest.

(1) In the low level sensation-seeking group, the GDT performance is improved when decision-making is accompanied with an 2-back task, but not with a 1-back task, indicating that there is an advantage of intuitive processing when cognitive resources is limited; (2) In the high level sensation-seeking group, there is no significant difference in the GDT, indicating that there is no advantage of intuitive processing.

The advantage of intuitive processing in decision-making under risk relies both on cognitive resources and sensation-seeking of decision-makers.