Back

Negative Affect Induces Rapid Learning of Counterfactual Representations: A Model-based Facial Expression Analysis Approach

Haines, N.; Rass, O.; Shin, Y.-W.; Brown, J. W.; Ahn, W.-Y.

2020-08-15 neuroscience
10.1101/560011 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Whether we are making life-or-death decisions or thinking about the best way to phrase an email, counterfactual emotions including regret and disappointment play an ever-present role in how we make decisions. Functional theories of counterfactual thinking suggest that the experience and future expectation of counterfactual emotions should promote goal-oriented behavioral change. Although many studies find empirical support for such functional theories, the generative cognitive mechanisms through which counterfactual thinking facilitates changes in behavior are underexplored. Here, we develop generative models of risky decision-making that extend regret and disappointment theory to experience-based tasks, which we use to examine how people incorporate counterfactual information into their decisions across time. Further, we use computer-vision to detect positive and negative affect (valence) intensity from participants faces in response to feedback, which we use to explore how experienced emotion may correspond to cognitive mechanisms of learning, outcome valuation, or exploration/exploitation--any of which could result in functional changes in behavior. Using hierarchical Bayesian modeling and Bayesian model comparison methods, we found that a model assuming: (1) people learn to explicitly represent and subjectively weight counterfactual outcomes with increasing experience, and (2) people update their counterfactual expectations more rapidly as they experience increasingly intense negative affect best characterized empirical data. Our findings support functional accounts of regret and disappointment and demonstrate the potential for generative modeling and model-based facial expression analysis to enhance our understanding of cognition-emotion interactions.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Psychological Review
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.7%
2
Cognition
47 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.8%
3
Computational Psychiatry
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.0%
4
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
5
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 6%
6.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 20%
5.6%
7
Frontiers in Psychology
56 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.6%
8
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
23 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
9
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 46%
2.2%
10
Biological Psychology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
11
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 48%
1.8%
12
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
77 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
13
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 31%
1.5%
14
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
15
Nature Human Behaviour
95 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
16
Communications Psychology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
17
Learning & Memory
23 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
18
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
19
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 50%
1.1%
20
NeuroImage
903 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
21
The Journal of Neuroscience
1025 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.1%
22
Behavioral Neuroscience
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
23
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
24
Neuropsychologia
85 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
25
Journal of Neurophysiology
302 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
26
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
39 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%
27
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%
28
Psychological Science
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%