决策者对外部反馈反应中的“现状偏见”

IF 1.2 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, BIOLOGICAL
Davide Crivelli, Roberta A. Allegretta, Michela Balconi
{"title":"决策者对外部反馈反应中的“现状偏见”","authors":"Davide Crivelli,&nbsp;Roberta A. Allegretta,&nbsp;Michela Balconi","doi":"10.1007/s40750-023-00230-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Decision-making is often driven and guided by the evaluation of action effects and external cues on action outcomes, which are essential to optimize behavior in an adaptive manner. This work aimed at investigating decision-makers’ sensitivity to external cues (including positive and negative reinforcement) and their flexibility in using feedback to decide whether to stay or change the course of their choices. We also explored the neurofunctional correlates of individuals’ ability to re-assess their decisions in response to feedback, and its possible association with general decision-making styles.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>A realistic decision-making task set in a professional context was devised and administered in addition to the General Decision Making Style (GDMS) inventory. During the task, neurofunctional correlates of affective regulation, cognitive engagement, and information-processing load were non-invasively measured via wearable EEG.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>Participants showed a tendency to maintain their decisions following positive reinforcement, or when no explicit feedback was provided. Surprisingly, some of them tended to stay with their decisions also following negative feedback. We observed lower cognitive effort, as marked by lower prefrontal beta power, following positive feedback. Finally, we reported negative correlations between GDMS Dependent style scores and task scores in the positive feedback and no-feedback conditions, along with a positive correlation between GDMS Spontaneous style scores and task scores in the no-feedback condition.</p><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Our findings have implications for understanding adaptive and maladaptive decision-making in contexts in which feedback serves as a compass to orient one’s own performance and prevent the so-called cognitive inertia.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7178,"journal":{"name":"Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology","volume":"9 4","pages":"426 - 441"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The “status quo bias” in Response to External Feedback in Decision-Makers\",\"authors\":\"Davide Crivelli,&nbsp;Roberta A. Allegretta,&nbsp;Michela Balconi\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40750-023-00230-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Decision-making is often driven and guided by the evaluation of action effects and external cues on action outcomes, which are essential to optimize behavior in an adaptive manner. This work aimed at investigating decision-makers’ sensitivity to external cues (including positive and negative reinforcement) and their flexibility in using feedback to decide whether to stay or change the course of their choices. We also explored the neurofunctional correlates of individuals’ ability to re-assess their decisions in response to feedback, and its possible association with general decision-making styles.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>A realistic decision-making task set in a professional context was devised and administered in addition to the General Decision Making Style (GDMS) inventory. During the task, neurofunctional correlates of affective regulation, cognitive engagement, and information-processing load were non-invasively measured via wearable EEG.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>Participants showed a tendency to maintain their decisions following positive reinforcement, or when no explicit feedback was provided. Surprisingly, some of them tended to stay with their decisions also following negative feedback. We observed lower cognitive effort, as marked by lower prefrontal beta power, following positive feedback. Finally, we reported negative correlations between GDMS Dependent style scores and task scores in the positive feedback and no-feedback conditions, along with a positive correlation between GDMS Spontaneous style scores and task scores in the no-feedback condition.</p><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Our findings have implications for understanding adaptive and maladaptive decision-making in contexts in which feedback serves as a compass to orient one’s own performance and prevent the so-called cognitive inertia.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7178,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology\",\"volume\":\"9 4\",\"pages\":\"426 - 441\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40750-023-00230-1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, BIOLOGICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40750-023-00230-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, BIOLOGICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

决策往往是由对行动效果的评估和对行动结果的外部提示所驱动和指导的,这对于以适应性的方式优化行为至关重要。这项工作旨在调查决策者对外部线索(包括积极和消极强化)的敏感性,以及他们在使用反馈来决定是留下还是改变他们的选择过程时的灵活性。我们还探索了个体在回应反馈时重新评估决策能力的神经功能相关性,以及它与一般决策风格的可能关联。方法在通用决策风格(GDMS)量表的基础上,设计并管理一套专业情境下的现实决策任务集。在任务期间,通过可穿戴脑电图无创测量情感调节、认知参与和信息处理负荷的神经功能相关。结果被试在正面强化或没有明确反馈的情况下,倾向于维持自己的决定。令人惊讶的是,他们中的一些人在收到负面反馈后也倾向于坚持自己的决定。我们观察到,在积极反馈后,认知努力降低,其标志是前额叶β能量降低。最后,我们发现在正反馈和无反馈条件下,GDMS依赖型风格得分与任务得分呈负相关,而在无反馈条件下,GDMS自发性风格得分与任务得分呈正相关。结论我们的研究结果对理解在反馈作为指导自我表现和防止所谓认知惯性的指南针的情况下的适应性和非适应性决策具有启示意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The “status quo bias” in Response to External Feedback in Decision-Makers

The “status quo bias” in Response to External Feedback in Decision-Makers

Objectives

Decision-making is often driven and guided by the evaluation of action effects and external cues on action outcomes, which are essential to optimize behavior in an adaptive manner. This work aimed at investigating decision-makers’ sensitivity to external cues (including positive and negative reinforcement) and their flexibility in using feedback to decide whether to stay or change the course of their choices. We also explored the neurofunctional correlates of individuals’ ability to re-assess their decisions in response to feedback, and its possible association with general decision-making styles.

Methods

A realistic decision-making task set in a professional context was devised and administered in addition to the General Decision Making Style (GDMS) inventory. During the task, neurofunctional correlates of affective regulation, cognitive engagement, and information-processing load were non-invasively measured via wearable EEG.

Results

Participants showed a tendency to maintain their decisions following positive reinforcement, or when no explicit feedback was provided. Surprisingly, some of them tended to stay with their decisions also following negative feedback. We observed lower cognitive effort, as marked by lower prefrontal beta power, following positive feedback. Finally, we reported negative correlations between GDMS Dependent style scores and task scores in the positive feedback and no-feedback conditions, along with a positive correlation between GDMS Spontaneous style scores and task scores in the no-feedback condition.

Conclusions

Our findings have implications for understanding adaptive and maladaptive decision-making in contexts in which feedback serves as a compass to orient one’s own performance and prevent the so-called cognitive inertia.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology
Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology PSYCHOLOGY, BIOLOGICAL-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
6.20%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology is an international interdisciplinary scientific journal that publishes theoretical and empirical studies of any aspects of adaptive human behavior (e.g. cooperation, affiliation, and bonding, competition and aggression, sex and relationships, parenting, decision-making), with emphasis on studies that also address the biological (e.g. neural, endocrine, immune, cardiovascular, genetic) mechanisms controlling behavior.
×
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