Search for solutions, learning, simulation, and choice processes in suicidal behavior.

IF 3.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Cognitive Science Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-05-18 DOI:10.1002/wcs.1561
Alexandre Y Dombrovski, Michael N Hallquist
{"title":"Search for solutions, learning, simulation, and choice processes in suicidal behavior.","authors":"Alexandre Y Dombrovski, Michael N Hallquist","doi":"10.1002/wcs.1561","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Suicide may be viewed as an unfortunate outcome of failures in decision processes. Such failures occur when the demands of a crisis exceed a person's capacity to (i) search for options, (ii) learn and simulate possible futures, and (iii) make advantageous value-based choices. Can individual-level decision deficits and biases drive the progression of the suicidal crisis? Our overview of the evidence on this question is informed by clinical theory and grounded in reinforcement learning and behavioral economics. Cohort and case-control studies provide strong evidence that limited cognitive capacity and particularly impaired cognitive control are associated with suicidal behavior, imposing cognitive constraints on decision-making. We conceptualize suicidal ideation as an element of impoverished consideration sets resulting from a search for solutions under cognitive constraints and mood-congruent Pavlovian influences, a view supported by mostly indirect evidence. More compelling is the evidence of impaired learning in people with a history of suicidal behavior. We speculate that an inability to simulate alternative futures using one's model of the world may undermine alternative solutions in a suicidal crisis. The hypothesis supported by the strongest evidence is that the selection of suicide over alternatives is facilitated by a choice process undermined by randomness. Case-control studies using gambling tasks, armed bandits, and delay discounting support this claim. Future experimental studies will need to uncover real-time dynamics of choice processes in suicidal people. In summary, the decision process framework sheds light on neurocognitive mechanisms that facilitate the progression of the suicidal crisis. This article is categorized under: Economics > Individual Decision-Making Psychology > Emotion and Motivation Psychology > Learning Neuroscience > Behavior.</p>","PeriodicalId":47720,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Cognitive Science","volume":"13 1","pages":"e1561"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ec/e2/WCS-13-0.PMC9285563.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1561","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/5/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Suicide may be viewed as an unfortunate outcome of failures in decision processes. Such failures occur when the demands of a crisis exceed a person's capacity to (i) search for options, (ii) learn and simulate possible futures, and (iii) make advantageous value-based choices. Can individual-level decision deficits and biases drive the progression of the suicidal crisis? Our overview of the evidence on this question is informed by clinical theory and grounded in reinforcement learning and behavioral economics. Cohort and case-control studies provide strong evidence that limited cognitive capacity and particularly impaired cognitive control are associated with suicidal behavior, imposing cognitive constraints on decision-making. We conceptualize suicidal ideation as an element of impoverished consideration sets resulting from a search for solutions under cognitive constraints and mood-congruent Pavlovian influences, a view supported by mostly indirect evidence. More compelling is the evidence of impaired learning in people with a history of suicidal behavior. We speculate that an inability to simulate alternative futures using one's model of the world may undermine alternative solutions in a suicidal crisis. The hypothesis supported by the strongest evidence is that the selection of suicide over alternatives is facilitated by a choice process undermined by randomness. Case-control studies using gambling tasks, armed bandits, and delay discounting support this claim. Future experimental studies will need to uncover real-time dynamics of choice processes in suicidal people. In summary, the decision process framework sheds light on neurocognitive mechanisms that facilitate the progression of the suicidal crisis. This article is categorized under: Economics > Individual Decision-Making Psychology > Emotion and Motivation Psychology > Learning Neuroscience > Behavior.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

自杀行为中的寻找解决方案、学习、模拟和选择过程。
自杀可被视为决策过程失败的不幸结果。当危机的需求超出了一个人的能力时,这种失败就会发生:(i) 寻找选择;(ii) 学习和模拟可能的未来;(iii) 做出基于价值的有利选择。个人层面的决策缺陷和偏差会导致自杀危机的发展吗?我们对这一问题的证据综述以临床理论为依据,以强化学习和行为经济学为基础。队列研究和病例对照研究提供了强有力的证据,证明认知能力有限,尤其是认知控制能力受损与自杀行为有关,从而对决策施加了认知限制。我们将自杀意念概念化为在认知限制和与情绪一致的巴甫洛夫影响下寻找解决方案所产生的贫乏考虑集的一个要素,这一观点得到了大部分间接证据的支持。更有说服力的证据是,有自杀行为史的人学习能力受损。我们推测,在自杀危机中,无法使用自己的世界模型模拟其他未来可能会破坏其他解决方案。得到最有力证据支持的假设是,在随机性的破坏下,选择自杀的过程会促进自杀行为的发生。利用赌博任务、武装匪徒和延迟贴现进行的病例对照研究支持这一说法。未来的实验研究需要揭示自杀者选择过程的实时动态。总之,决策过程框架揭示了促进自杀危机发展的神经认知机制。本文归类于经济学 > 个人决策心理学 > 情绪与动机心理学 > 学习神经科学 > 行为学。
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
7.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
50
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信