We compared the original deck-based model of advantageous decision making assessed with the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) with a trial-based approach across behavioral and physiological outcomes in 33 younger adults (15 men, 18 women; 22.2 [plus or minus] 3.7 years of age). One administration of the IGT with simultaneous measurement of skin conductance responses (SCRs) was performed and the two methods applied: (a) the original approach of subtracting disadvantageous picks of Decks A and B from advantageous picks of Decks C and D and (b) a trial-based approach focused on the financial outcome for each deck leading up to the trial in question. When directly compared, the deck-based approach resulted in a more advantageous behavioral profile than did the trial-based approach. Analysis of SCR data revealed no significant differences between methods for physiological measurements of SCR fluctuations or anticipatory responses to disadvantageous picks. Post hoc investigation of the trial-based method revealed Deck B contributed to both advantageous and disadvantageous decision making for the majority of participants. When divided by blocks of 20, the number of advantageous to disadvantageous choices reversed as the task progressed despite the total number of picks from Deck B remaining high. SCR fluctuations for Deck B, although not significantly different from the other decks, did show a sharp decline after the first block of 20 and remained below levels for Decks C and D toward the end of the task, suggesting that participants may have gained knowledge of the frequency of loss for this deck. (Contains 4 tables and 2 figures.)