IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1008555.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dissecting the links between reward and loss, decision-making, and self-reported affect using a computational approach

Author

Listed:
  • Vikki Neville
  • Peter Dayan
  • Iain D Gilchrist
  • Elizabeth S Paul
  • Michael Mendl

Abstract

Links between affective states and risk-taking are often characterised using summary statistics from serial decision-making tasks. However, our understanding of these links, and the utility of decision-making as a marker of affect, needs to accommodate the fact that ongoing (e.g., within-task) experience of rewarding and punishing decision outcomes may alter future decisions and affective states. To date, the interplay between affect, ongoing reward and punisher experience, and decision-making has received little detailed investigation. Here, we examined the relationships between reward and loss experience, affect, and decision-making in humans using a novel judgement bias task analysed with a novel computational model. We demonstrated the influence of within-task favourability on decision-making, with more risk-averse/‘pessimistic’ decisions following more positive previous outcomes and a greater current average earning rate. Additionally, individuals reporting more negative affect tended to exhibit greater risk-seeking decision-making, and, based on our model, estimated time more poorly. We also found that individuals reported more positive affective valence during periods of the task when prediction errors and offered decision outcomes were more positive. Our results thus provide new evidence that (short-term) within-task rewarding and punishing experiences determine both future decision-making and subjectively experienced affective states.Author summary: Affective states, such as happiness, are key to well-being. They are thought to reflect characteristics of the environment such as the availability of reward and the inevitability of punishment. However, there is a lack of agreement about: (i) the time scales over which these characteristics are measured; (ii) how and in what combinations actual or expected outcomes influence affect; (iii) how affect itself influences decision-making. A particular stance on the last issue underpins the judgement bias task, which, by measuring an individual’s willingness to make ‘optimistic’ or ‘pessimistic’ choices that are rendered risky by perceptual ambiguity, is one of the few cross-species tests for affect. Here we apply a novel computational analysis to a novel judgement bias task to examine all three issues. We reveal a rich interplay between affect and rewards, punishments, and uncertainty.

Suggested Citation

  • Vikki Neville & Peter Dayan & Iain D Gilchrist & Elizabeth S Paul & Michael Mendl, 2021. "Dissecting the links between reward and loss, decision-making, and self-reported affect using a computational approach," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-27, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1008555
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008555
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008555
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008555&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008555?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dorota Chimicz & Agnieszka Lewicka-Zelent & Alicja Lisiecka, 2023. "Mood and Emotions among Inmates after COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-17, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1008555. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.