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.
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.