二元决策中的选择历史偏差。

IF 3.9 2区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Ann Huang, Mathis Pink, Viktoria Zemliak, Artur Czeszumski, Peter König
{"title":"二元决策中的选择历史偏差。","authors":"Ann Huang, Mathis Pink, Viktoria Zemliak, Artur Czeszumski, Peter König","doi":"10.1038/s41598-025-96182-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>How do we interact with our environment and make decisions about the world around us? Empirical research using psychophysical tasks has demonstrated that our perceptual decisions are influenced by past choices, a phenomenon known as the \"choice history bias\" effect. This decision-making process suggests that the brain adapts to environmental uncertainties based on history. However, single-subject experiment task design is prevalent across the work on choice history bias, thus limiting the implications of the empirical evidence to individual decisions. Here, we explore the choice history bias effect using a dual-participant approach, where dyads perform a shared perceptual decision-making task. We first propose two competing hypotheses: the participants equally weigh their own and their partner's decision history, or the participants do not weigh equally their own and their partner's decision history. We then use a statistical modeling approach to fit generalized linear models to the choice data in a series of steps and arrive at a model that best fits the observed data. Our results indicated that the own and partner's trial history cannot be treated independently. The findings suggest an interaction of actor and decision at 1-back, leading to a choice alternation bias after a partner's decision in contrast to a choice repetition bias after an own decision. A similar effect is observed at 2-back, in addition to an additive choice repetition bias of similar size. The effects of actor and decision at 2-back do not depend on the properties of the 1-back trial. Together, these findings support the idea that the participants do not ignore their partner's decisions but treat these qualitatively differently from their own.</p>","PeriodicalId":21811,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Reports","volume":"15 1","pages":"11420"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11968856/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Choice history biases in dyadic decision making.\",\"authors\":\"Ann Huang, Mathis Pink, Viktoria Zemliak, Artur Czeszumski, Peter König\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41598-025-96182-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>How do we interact with our environment and make decisions about the world around us? Empirical research using psychophysical tasks has demonstrated that our perceptual decisions are influenced by past choices, a phenomenon known as the \\\"choice history bias\\\" effect. This decision-making process suggests that the brain adapts to environmental uncertainties based on history. However, single-subject experiment task design is prevalent across the work on choice history bias, thus limiting the implications of the empirical evidence to individual decisions. Here, we explore the choice history bias effect using a dual-participant approach, where dyads perform a shared perceptual decision-making task. We first propose two competing hypotheses: the participants equally weigh their own and their partner's decision history, or the participants do not weigh equally their own and their partner's decision history. We then use a statistical modeling approach to fit generalized linear models to the choice data in a series of steps and arrive at a model that best fits the observed data. Our results indicated that the own and partner's trial history cannot be treated independently. The findings suggest an interaction of actor and decision at 1-back, leading to a choice alternation bias after a partner's decision in contrast to a choice repetition bias after an own decision. A similar effect is observed at 2-back, in addition to an additive choice repetition bias of similar size. The effects of actor and decision at 2-back do not depend on the properties of the 1-back trial. Together, these findings support the idea that the participants do not ignore their partner's decisions but treat these qualitatively differently from their own.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21811,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"11420\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11968856/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-96182-5\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Reports","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-96182-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们如何与环境互动,如何对周围的世界做出决定?使用心理物理任务的实证研究表明,我们的感知决策受到过去选择的影响,这种现象被称为“选择历史偏见”效应。这一决策过程表明,大脑根据历史适应环境的不确定性。然而,单受试者实验任务设计在选择历史偏差的研究中普遍存在,从而限制了经验证据对个体决策的影响。在这里,我们使用双参与者方法探索选择历史偏差效应,其中二人执行共同的感知决策任务。我们首先提出两种相互竞争的假设:参与者平等地权衡自己和伴侣的决策历史,或者参与者不平等地权衡自己和伴侣的决策历史。然后,我们使用统计建模方法在一系列步骤中将广义线性模型拟合到选择数据中,并得出最适合观测数据的模型。我们的结果表明,自己和合作伙伴的试验史不能独立对待。研究结果表明,行动者和决策在1-back之间存在相互作用,导致在同伴做出决定后出现选择交替偏差,而在自己做出决定后出现选择重复偏差。在2-back实验中也观察到类似的效应,此外还有类似大小的附加选择重复偏差。行为人和决策在2-back试验中的影响并不取决于1-back试验的特性。总之,这些发现支持了这样一种观点,即参与者并没有忽视他们伴侣的决定,而是将这些决定与他们自己的决定区别对待。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Choice history biases in dyadic decision making.

Choice history biases in dyadic decision making.

Choice history biases in dyadic decision making.

Choice history biases in dyadic decision making.

How do we interact with our environment and make decisions about the world around us? Empirical research using psychophysical tasks has demonstrated that our perceptual decisions are influenced by past choices, a phenomenon known as the "choice history bias" effect. This decision-making process suggests that the brain adapts to environmental uncertainties based on history. However, single-subject experiment task design is prevalent across the work on choice history bias, thus limiting the implications of the empirical evidence to individual decisions. Here, we explore the choice history bias effect using a dual-participant approach, where dyads perform a shared perceptual decision-making task. We first propose two competing hypotheses: the participants equally weigh their own and their partner's decision history, or the participants do not weigh equally their own and their partner's decision history. We then use a statistical modeling approach to fit generalized linear models to the choice data in a series of steps and arrive at a model that best fits the observed data. Our results indicated that the own and partner's trial history cannot be treated independently. The findings suggest an interaction of actor and decision at 1-back, leading to a choice alternation bias after a partner's decision in contrast to a choice repetition bias after an own decision. A similar effect is observed at 2-back, in addition to an additive choice repetition bias of similar size. The effects of actor and decision at 2-back do not depend on the properties of the 1-back trial. Together, these findings support the idea that the participants do not ignore their partner's decisions but treat these qualitatively differently from their own.

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
Scientific Reports
Scientific Reports Natural Science Disciplines-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
4.30%
发文量
19567
审稿时长
3.9 months
期刊介绍: We publish original research from all areas of the natural sciences, psychology, medicine and engineering. You can learn more about what we publish by browsing our specific scientific subject areas below or explore Scientific Reports by browsing all articles and collections. Scientific Reports has a 2-year impact factor: 4.380 (2021), and is the 6th most-cited journal in the world, with more than 540,000 citations in 2020 (Clarivate Analytics, 2021). •Engineering Engineering covers all aspects of engineering, technology, and applied science. It plays a crucial role in the development of technologies to address some of the world''s biggest challenges, helping to save lives and improve the way we live. •Physical sciences Physical sciences are those academic disciplines that aim to uncover the underlying laws of nature — often written in the language of mathematics. It is a collective term for areas of study including astronomy, chemistry, materials science and physics. •Earth and environmental sciences Earth and environmental sciences cover all aspects of Earth and planetary science and broadly encompass solid Earth processes, surface and atmospheric dynamics, Earth system history, climate and climate change, marine and freshwater systems, and ecology. It also considers the interactions between humans and these systems. •Biological sciences Biological sciences encompass all the divisions of natural sciences examining various aspects of vital processes. The concept includes anatomy, physiology, cell biology, biochemistry and biophysics, and covers all organisms from microorganisms, animals to plants. •Health sciences The health sciences study health, disease and healthcare. This field of study aims to develop knowledge, interventions and technology for use in healthcare to improve the treatment of patients.
×
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