» Articles » PMID: 37291409

Explaining the Description-experience Gap in Risky Decision-making: Learning and Memory Retention During Experience As Causal Mechanisms

Overview
Publisher Springer
Date 2023 Jun 8
PMID 37291409
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

When making decisions based on probabilistic outcomes, people guide their behavior using knowledge gathered through both indirect descriptions and direct experience. Paradoxically, how people obtain information significantly impacts apparent preferences. A ubiquitous example is the description-experience gap: individuals seemingly overweight low probability events when probabilities are described yet underweight them when probabilities must be experienced firsthand. A leading explanation for this fundamental gap in decision-making is that probabilities are weighted differently when learned through description relative to experience, yet a formal theoretical account of the mechanism responsible for such weighting differences remains elusive. We demonstrate how various learning and memory retention models incorporating neuroscientifically motivated learning mechanisms can explain why probability weighting and valuation parameters often are found to vary across description and experience. In a simulation study, we show how learning through experience can lead to systematically biased estimates of probability weighting when using a traditional cumulative prospect theory model. We then use hierarchical Bayesian modeling and Bayesian model comparison to show how various learning and memory retention models capture participants' behavior over and above changes in outcome valuation and probability weighting, accounting for description and experience-based decisions in a within-subject experiment. We conclude with a discussion of how substantive models of psychological processes can lead to insights that heuristic statistical models fail to capture.

References
1.
Ahn W, Busemeyer J . Challenges and promises for translating computational tools into clinical practice. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2016; 11:1-7. PMC: 4834893. DOI: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.02.001. View

2.
Ahn W, Busemeyer J, Wagenmakers E, Stout J . Comparison of decision learning models using the generalization criterion method. Cogn Sci. 2011; 32(8):1376-402. DOI: 10.1080/03640210802352992. View

3.
Ahn W, Haines N, Zhang L . Revealing Neurocomputational Mechanisms of Reinforcement Learning and Decision-Making With the hBayesDM Package. Comput Psychiatr. 2018; 1:24-57. PMC: 5869013. DOI: 10.1162/CPSY_a_00002. View

4.
Busemeyer J . Decision making under uncertainty: a comparison of simple scalability, fixed-sample, and sequential-sampling models. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1985; 11(3):538-64. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.11.3.538. View

5.
Christakou A, Gershman S, Niv Y, Simmons A, Brammer M, Rubia K . Neural and psychological maturation of decision-making in adolescence and young adulthood. J Cogn Neurosci. 2013; 25(11):1807-23. DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_00447. View