The road not taken: selective sampling and persisting inaccurate impressions.

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Motivation and Emotion Pub Date : 2026-01-01 Epub Date: 2026-02-09 DOI:10.1007/s11031-026-10205-w
Emily Ann Vanlooy, Chris Harris, Irene van de Vijver, Ruud Custers
{"title":"The road not taken: selective sampling and persisting inaccurate impressions.","authors":"Emily Ann Vanlooy, Chris Harris, Irene van de Vijver, Ruud Custers","doi":"10.1007/s11031-026-10205-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When individuals learn through experience, they tend to choose those options they believe will produce the most favourable outcomes. Research by Harris et al. (J Exp Psychol: General 149(10):1855-1877, 2020) indicated that this inclination to consistently engage with the perceived optimal choice can bias the resulting evidence, potentially perpetuating inaccurate beliefs under certain conditions. It remains unclear, however, whether this bias persistence depends on the valence of the learning context. In the present study, participants completed a two-armed bandit task with identical options, where initial evidence was manipulated to induce the belief that one option was better than the other. Experiment 1 was conducted in a rewarding context, where financial gains served as a reinforcer (as opposed to neutral outcomes), while Experiment 2 featured a negative context, with the omission of an expected aversive event as a reinforcer. Behavioral measures showed signs of a lasting bias in the aversive context of Experiment 2, corroborated by a bias in explicit contingency estimates. No such effects were observed in the positive context of Experiment 1. These findings suggest that outcome valence modulates bias persistence in experiential learning. Implications for how negative contexts may promote the maintenance of irrational aversive beliefs are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48282,"journal":{"name":"Motivation and Emotion","volume":"50 4","pages":"634-653"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13433704/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Motivation and Emotion","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-026-10205-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When individuals learn through experience, they tend to choose those options they believe will produce the most favourable outcomes. Research by Harris et al. (J Exp Psychol: General 149(10):1855-1877, 2020) indicated that this inclination to consistently engage with the perceived optimal choice can bias the resulting evidence, potentially perpetuating inaccurate beliefs under certain conditions. It remains unclear, however, whether this bias persistence depends on the valence of the learning context. In the present study, participants completed a two-armed bandit task with identical options, where initial evidence was manipulated to induce the belief that one option was better than the other. Experiment 1 was conducted in a rewarding context, where financial gains served as a reinforcer (as opposed to neutral outcomes), while Experiment 2 featured a negative context, with the omission of an expected aversive event as a reinforcer. Behavioral measures showed signs of a lasting bias in the aversive context of Experiment 2, corroborated by a bias in explicit contingency estimates. No such effects were observed in the positive context of Experiment 1. These findings suggest that outcome valence modulates bias persistence in experiential learning. Implications for how negative contexts may promote the maintenance of irrational aversive beliefs are discussed.

没有走的路:选择性取样和坚持不准确的印象。
当个人通过经验学习时,他们倾向于选择那些他们认为会产生最有利结果的选项。Harris等人的研究(J Exp Psychol: General 149(10):1855-1877, 2020)表明,这种持续参与感知到的最优选择的倾向会使结果证据产生偏差,在某些条件下可能使不准确的信念永久化。然而,目前尚不清楚这种偏见的持久性是否取决于学习环境的效价。在本研究中,参与者完成了一个具有相同选项的双臂强盗任务,其中初始证据被操纵以诱导相信一个选项比另一个更好。实验1是在奖励环境中进行的,其中经济收益作为强化因素(与中性结果相反),而实验2是在消极环境中进行的,忽略了预期的厌恶事件作为强化因素。在实验2的厌恶情境中,行为测量显示出持久偏差的迹象,这被显性偶然性估计中的偏差所证实。在实验1的积极背景下,没有观察到这种影响。这些发现表明结果效价调节了体验学习中的偏倚持续性。讨论了消极环境如何促进非理性厌恶信念的维持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
4.20%
发文量
69
期刊介绍: Motivation and Emotion publishes articles on human motivational and emotional phenomena that make theoretical advances by linking empirical findings to underlying processes. Submissions should focus on key problems in motivation and emotion, and, if using non-human participants, should contribute to theories concerning human behavior.  Articles should be explanatory rather than merely descriptive, providing the data necessary to understand the origins of motivation and emotion, to explicate why, how, and under what conditions motivational and emotional states change, and to document that these processes are important to human functioning.A range of methodological approaches are welcome, with methodological rigor as the key criterion.  Manuscripts that rely exclusively on self-report data are appropriate, but published articles tend to be those that rely on objective measures (e.g., behavioral observations, psychophysiological responses, reaction times, brain activity, and performance or achievement indicators) either singly or combination with self-report data.The journal generally does not publish scale development and validation articles.  However, it is open to articles that focus on the post-validation contribution that a new measure can make.  Scale development and validation work therefore may be submitted if it is used as a necessary prerequisite to follow-up studies that demonstrate the importance of the new scale in making a theoretical advance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书