Esented. Two neuropsychologists with more than 10 years of experience working in a rehabilitation center with individuals with TBI were asked to read the scenarios to ensure they respected the six criteria; revisions were made based on their comments. The task consisted of two parts. In Part A, subjects were asked to read the scenario, which was followed by a behavior that was either socially appropriate or inappropriate, and then to indicate the extent to which they would have reacted in the same way if they had been in that situation. The inappropriate social behaviors proposed in the behavioral responses were TG100 115 inspired by those in the OBS scale [27]. Once constructed, the task underwent content validation for the behavioral responses with 14 healthy participants living in the community. For each scenario in the task, they were asked to assess the level of social adjustment represented by the behaviors illustrated on a scale from 1 (“very inappropriate”) to 4 (“very appropriate”). The results showed that the inappropriate social behaviors (M = 1.74/4; SD = 0.22) were judged as being significantly more inappropriate than the appropriate social behaviors (M = 2.27/4; SD = 0.24; t(13) = 9.277, p < 0.001). To simulate a decision-making task that would include both appropriate and inappropriate social behaviors, each scenario was presented three times, each time associated with a different behavior-- two that were socially inappropriate and one, socially appropriate--for a total of 36 scenarios presented in a controlled random order (no more than two inappropriate behaviors consecutively). Associating each scenario with only one behavior at a time helped prevent any contamination effect of one response choice (more appropriate) on another (less appropriate), as sometimes happens in a multiple choice task. Subjects responded on a Likert scale ranging from 0 to 3 (0 = not at all likely; 1 = unlikely; 2 = likely; 3 = very likely). A response of "likely" or "very likely" was considered to indicate that the subject would have chosen this behavior in the given situation.Behav. Sci. 2013,In Part B, the same 12 scenarios were presented again, but this time only once. Each scenario was associated with a pre-selected behavior from Part A. Nine scenarios included an inappropriate social behavior, and three, an appropriate social behavior. Because one of our hypotheses concerned TBI-ISB subjects' difficulties with anticipating negative consequences after an ISB, we included more inappropriate behaviors than appropriate ones to maximize the observations. In part B, the subjects were not asked to indicate the extent to which they would have reacted in the same way if they had been in that situation. Instead, after the presentation of the scenario associated with one PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19896111 behavior, two different emotional consequences were presented one after the other: an angry response from the other person, and feelings of personal embarrassment. Subjects were asked to indicate the extent to which they considered it 606143-89-9 price likely that the behavior would be followed by each of the consequences. For their responses, they used the same Likert scale as in Part A. We decided to present 
the two scales for emotional consequences separately from the scale for behaviors (inappropriate and appropriate), that is, to separate Parts A and B of the task, so that the presentation of emotional consequences (angry reaction from others and feelings of personal embarrassment–Part B) would not influ.Esented. Two neuropsychologists with more than 10 years of experience working in a rehabilitation center with individuals with TBI were asked to read the scenarios to ensure they respected the six criteria; revisions were made based on their comments. The task consisted of two parts. In Part A, subjects were asked to read the scenario, which was followed by a behavior that was either socially appropriate or inappropriate, and then to indicate the extent to which they would have reacted in the same way if they had been in that situation. The inappropriate social behaviors proposed in the behavioral responses were inspired by those in the OBS scale [27]. Once constructed, the task underwent content validation for the behavioral responses with 14 healthy participants living in the community. For each scenario in the task, they were asked to assess the level of social adjustment represented by the behaviors illustrated on a scale from 1 (“very inappropriate”) to 4 (“very appropriate”). The results showed that the inappropriate social behaviors (M = 1.74/4; SD = 0.22) were judged as being significantly more inappropriate than the appropriate social behaviors (M = 2.27/4; SD = 0.24; t(13) = 9.277, p < 0.001). To simulate a decision-making task that would include both appropriate and inappropriate social behaviors, each scenario was presented three times, each time associated with a different behavior-- two that were socially inappropriate and one, socially appropriate--for a total of 36 scenarios presented in a controlled random order (no more than two inappropriate behaviors consecutively). Associating each scenario with only one behavior at a time helped prevent any contamination effect of one response choice (more appropriate) on another (less appropriate), as sometimes happens in a multiple choice task. Subjects responded on a Likert scale ranging from 0 to 3 (0 = not at all likely; 1 = unlikely; 2 = likely; 3 = very likely). A response of "likely" or "very likely" was considered to indicate that the subject would have chosen this behavior in the given situation.Behav. Sci. 2013,In Part B, the same 12 scenarios were presented again, but this time only once. Each scenario was associated with a pre-selected behavior from Part A. Nine scenarios included an inappropriate social behavior, and three, an appropriate social behavior. Because one of our hypotheses concerned TBI-ISB subjects' difficulties with anticipating negative consequences after an ISB, we included more inappropriate behaviors than appropriate ones to maximize the observations. In part B, the subjects were not asked to indicate the extent to which they would have reacted in the same way if they had been in that situation. Instead, after the presentation of the scenario associated with one PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19896111 behavior, two different emotional consequences were presented one after the other: an angry response from the other person, and feelings of personal embarrassment. Subjects were asked to indicate the extent to which they considered it likely that the behavior would be followed by each of the consequences. For their responses, they used the same Likert scale as in Part A. We decided to present the two scales for emotional consequences separately from the scale for behaviors (inappropriate and appropriate), that is, to 
separate Parts A and B of the task, so that the presentation of emotional consequences (angry reaction from others and feelings of personal embarrassment–Part B) would not influ.