Dorien Bangma

FDM AND NORMAL AGING | 43 decision-making (Appelbaum & Grisso, 1988; Karlawish et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2001; Martin, Okonkwo, et al., 2008; Suto et al., 2005; Vellinga et al., 2005). In the FDMI, two vignettes with a complex hypothetical financial problem are presented in oral and written form. After the presentation of the vignette, participants are asked to answer questions related to the five domains of decision-making capacity. For each answer, participants receive a score of 0, 1 or 2 based on the degree of completeness. The scores on both vignettes are combined and one overall total score (maximum score of 20) is calculated as well as total scores for each subscale (maximum score of 4). The Financial Decision Style (FDS) questionnaire is used to evaluate the manners individuals apply in FDM situations (i.e., financial decision styles; Harren, 1979; Scott & Bruce, 1995). The FDS is based on the General Decision-Making Style questionnaire (Scott & Bruce, 1995) which is a self-report questionnaire with good construct validity (Loo, 2000; Spicer & Sadler-Smith, 2005). The FDS consists of 24 questions and differentiates five decision-making styles (Scott & Bruce, 1995), i.e., (1) a ‘rational’ style characterized by the evaluation of options (e.g., ‘I make financial decisions in a logical and systematic manner’), (2) an ‘intuitive’ style which allows individuals to rely on feelings or emotions (e.g., ‘When I make financial decisions, I tend to rely on my intuition’), (3) a ‘dependent’ style characterized by the requirement of advice of others (e.g., ‘I rarely make important financial decisions without consulting other people’), (4) an ‘avoidant’ style characterized by avoiding and postponing decisions (e.g., ‘I postpone financial decision-making whenever possible’) and (5) a ‘spontaneous’ style characterized by impulsivity (e.g., ‘I often make financial decisions in the spur of the moment’). For each question, participants are asked to rate on a scale ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ) to what extent each situation applies to them. A total score is calculated for each financial decision style. Competence in Decision Rules (CDR) test is a subtest of the Adult Decision-Making Competence battery (Bruine de Bruin et al., 2007; Parker & Fischhoff, 2005) and assesses the ability to make financial decisions based on specific rules or criteria, such as selecting a product that meets certain requirements. The CDR contains ten scenarios with increasing complexity during which participants need to indicate which of five televisions (the original version referred to a DVD-player) they would buy using different decision rules. For example, ‘Emma wants the television with the highest average rating. However, she also wants to make sure that she buys a television that obtained the best rating on sound quality’. All televisions are equally priced, but vary in their technical specifications (e.g., picture quality and brand reliability). To make correct decisions in this test, participants are required to analyze the specifications of each television and to balance all pros and cons of a specific television based on the given rule. A total score is calculated based on the total number of correctly answered scenarios (maximum score is 10). The Temporal Discounting Task (TDT) consists of eighteen different hypothetical scenarios and is used to assess decisions with implications for the future, such as choosing between spending or saving money. A critical characteristic of these decisions is that the subjective value of an option decreases over time (i.e., temporal discounting (TD); Green et al., 1994). During each scenario of the TDT participants have to indicate the lowest amount of