首页> 外文OA文献 >Cognitive Bias in Ambiguity Judgements:Using Computational Models to Dissect the Effects of Mild Mood Manipulation in Humans
【2h】

Cognitive Bias in Ambiguity Judgements:Using Computational Models to Dissect the Effects of Mild Mood Manipulation in Humans

机译:歧义判断中的认知偏见:使用计算模型剖析人类对轻度情绪操纵的影响

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Positive and negative moods can be treated as prior expectations over future delivery of rewards and punishments. This provides an inferential foundation for the cognitive (judgement) bias task, now widely-used for assessing affective states in non-human animals. In the task, information about affect is extracted from the optimistic or pessimistic manner in which participants resolve ambiguities in sensory input. Here, we report a novel variant of the task aimed at dissecting the effects of affect manipulations on perceptual and value computations for decision-making under ambiguity in humans. Participants were instructed to judge which way a Gabor patch (250ms presentation) was leaning. If the stimulus leant one way (e.g. left), pressing the REWard key yielded a monetary WIN whilst pressing the SAFE key failed to acquire the WIN. If it leant the other way (e.g. right), pressing the SAFE key avoided a LOSS whilst pressing the REWard key incurred the LOSS. The size (0-100 UK pence) of the offered WIN and threatened LOSS, and the ambiguity of the stimulus (vertical being completely ambiguous) were varied on a trial-by-trial basis, allowing us to investigate how decisions were affected by differing combinations of these factors. Half the subjects performed the task in a `Pleasantly' decorated room and were given a gift (bag of sweets) prior to starting, whilst the other half were in a bare `Unpleasant' room and were not given anything. Although these treatments had little effect on self-reported mood, they did lead to differences in decision-making. All subjects were risk averse under ambiguity, consistent with the notion of loss aversion. Analysis using a Bayesian decision model indicated that Unpleasant Room subjects were (`pessimistically') biased towards choosing the SAFE key under ambiguity, but also weighed WINS more heavily than LOSSes compared to Pleasant Room subjects. These apparently contradictory findings may be explained by the influence of affect on different processes underlying decision-making, and the task presented here offers opportunities for further dissecting such processes.
机译:积极和消极的情绪可以被视为对未来交付奖惩的事先期望。这为认知(判断)偏见任务提供了推论基础,该任务现已广泛用于评估非人类动物的情感状态。在任务中,从参与者解决感官输入歧义的乐观或悲观方式中提取有关情感的信息。在这里,我们报告了一种新颖的任务变体,旨在剖析情感操纵对感知和价值计算的影响,以便在人类歧义下做出决策。指示参与者判断Gabor贴片(250毫秒演示)的倾斜方向。如果刺激以一种方式(例如向左)倾斜,则按REWard键将产生货币性的胜利,而按SAFE键则无法获得胜利。如果它以另一种方式倾斜(例如,向右倾斜),则按SAFE键可以避免LOSS,而按REWard键则会导致LOSS。所提供的WIN的大小(0-100英国便士)和受威胁的LOSS,以及刺激性的歧义性(垂直完全模棱两可)在逐个试验的基础上有所不同,这使我们能够研究不同的决策如何影响决策这些因素的组合。一半的受试者在一个“宜人”装饰的房间里执行任务,并在开始之前被送了礼物(一袋糖果),而另一半则在一个光秃秃的“不愉快”的房间里没有得到任何东西。尽管这些治疗对自我报告的情绪影响很小,但确实导致了决策差异。所有受试者均在模棱两可的情况下规避风险,这与损失规避的概念一致。使用贝叶斯决策模型的分析表明,不愉快房间的对象(“悲观地”)偏向于选择歧义下的SAFE密钥,但与愉悦房间的对象相比,WINS的权重比LOSS大。这些明显矛盾的发现可以通过影响对决策基础不同过程的影响来解释,这里提出的任务为进一步剖析此类过程提供了机会。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号