» Articles » PMID: 29491844

Mood As Cumulative Expectation Mismatch: A Test of Theory Based on Data from Non-verbal Cognitive Bias Tests

Overview
Journal Front Psychol
Date 2018 Mar 2
PMID 29491844
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Affective states are known to influence behavior and cognitive processes. To assess mood (moderately long-term affective states), the cognitive judgment bias test was developed and has been widely used in various animal species. However, little is known about how mood changes, how mood can be experimentally manipulated, and how mood then feeds back into cognitive judgment. A recent theory argues that mood reflects the cumulative impact of differences between obtained outcomes and expectations. Here expectations refer to an established context. Situations in which an established context fails to match an outcome are then perceived as mismatches of expectation and outcome. We take advantage of the large number of studies published on non-verbal cognitive bias tests in recent years (95 studies with a total of 162 independent tests) to test whether cumulative mismatch could indeed have led to the observed mood changes. Based on a criteria list, we assessed whether mismatch had occurred with the experimental procedure used to induce mood (mood induction mismatch), or in the context of the non-verbal cognitive bias procedure (testing mismatch). For the mood induction mismatch, we scored the mismatch between the subjects' potential expectations and the manipulations conducted for inducing mood whereas, for the testing mismatch, we scored mismatches that may have occurred during the actual testing. We then investigated whether these two types of mismatch can predict the actual outcome of the cognitive bias study. The present evaluation shows that mood induction mismatch cannot well predict the success of a cognitive bias test. On the other hand, testing mismatch can modulate or even inverse the expected outcome. We think, cognitive bias studies should more specifically aim at creating expectation mismatch while inducing mood states to test the cumulative mismatch theory more properly. Furthermore, testing mismatch should be avoided as much as possible because it can reverse the affective state of animals as measured in a cognitive judgment bias paradigm.

Citing Articles

Structural environmental enrichment and the way it is offered influence cognitive judgement bias and anxiety-like behaviours in zebrafish.

Buenhombre J, Daza-Cardona E, Sousa P, Gouveia Jr A, Cajiao-Pachon M Anim Cogn. 2022; 26(2):563-577.

PMID: 36209454 DOI: 10.1007/s10071-022-01700-x.


Once an optimist, always an optimist? Studying cognitive judgment bias in mice.

Bracic M, Bohn L, Siewert V, von Kortzfleisch V, Schielzeth H, Kaiser S Behav Ecol. 2022; 33(4):775-788.

PMID: 35812364 PMC: 9262167. DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arac040.


The Acute Pharmacological Manipulation of Dopamine Receptors Modulates Judgment Bias in Japanese Quail.

Pichova K, Kubikova L, Kostal L Front Physiol. 2022; 13:883021.

PMID: 35634149 PMC: 9130459. DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2022.883021.


Acceptance Mindfulness-Trait as a Protective Factor for Post-Natal Depression: A Preliminary Research.

Tharwat D, Trousselard M, Fromage D, Belrose C, Bales M, Sutter-Dallay A Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(3).

PMID: 35162565 PMC: 8834924. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19031545.


Using judgment bias test in pet and shelter dogs (Canis familiaris): Methodological and statistical caveats.

Burani C, Barnard S, Wells D, Pelosi A, Valsecchi P PLoS One. 2020; 15(10):e0241344.

PMID: 33108399 PMC: 7591058. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241344.


References
1.
Keen H, Nelson O, Robbins C, Evans M, Shepherdson D, Newberry R . Validation of a novel cognitive bias task based on difference in quantity of reinforcement for assessing environmental enrichment. Anim Cogn. 2013; 17(3):529-41. DOI: 10.1007/s10071-013-0684-1. View

2.
Brilot B, Asher L, Bateson M . Stereotyping starlings are more 'pessimistic'. Anim Cogn. 2010; 13(5):721-31. DOI: 10.1007/s10071-010-0323-z. View

3.
Vogeli S, Lutz J, Wolf M, Wechsler B, Gygax L . Valence of physical stimuli, not housing conditions, affects behaviour and frontal cortical brain activity in sheep. Behav Brain Res. 2014; 267:144-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2014.03.036. View

4.
Rygula R, Papciak J, Popik P . The effects of acute pharmacological stimulation of the 5-HT, NA and DA systems on the cognitive judgement bias of rats in the ambiguous-cue interpretation paradigm. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2014; 24(7):1103-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2014.01.012. View

5.
Mendl M, Burman O, Paul E . An integrative and functional framework for the study of animal emotion and mood. Proc Biol Sci. 2010; 277(1696):2895-904. PMC: 2982018. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2010.0303. View