Choosing and learning: outcome valence differentially affects learning from free versus forced choices
Chambon, V.; Thero, H.; Vidal, M.; Vandendriessche, H.; Haggard, P.; Palminteri, S.
Show abstract
Positivity bias refers to learning more from positive than negative events. This learning asymmetry could either reflect a preference for positive events in general, or be the upshot of a more general, and perhaps, ubiquitous, \"choice-confirmation\" bias, whereby agents preferentially integrate information that confirms their previous decision. We systematically compared these two theories with 3 experiments mixing free- and forced-choice conditions, featuring factual and counterfactual learning and varying action requirements across \"go\" and \"no-go\" trials. Computational analyses of learning rates showed clear and robust evidence in favour of the \"choice-confirmation\" theory: participants amplified positive prediction errors in free-choice conditions while being valence-neutral on forced-choice conditions. We suggest that a choice-confirmation bias is adaptive to the extent that it reinforces actions that are most likely to meet an individuals needs, i.e. freely chosen actions. In contrast, outcomes from unchosen actions are more likely to be treated impartially, i.e. to be assigned no special value in self-determined decisions.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.