The neural basis of belief updating and rational decision making

被引:46
作者
Achtziger, Anja [1 ]
Alos-Ferrer, Carlos [2 ]
Huegelschaefer, Sabine [3 ]
Steinhauser, Marco [3 ]
机构
[1] Zeppelin Univ, Chair Social & Econ Psychol, D-88045 Friedrichshafen, Germany
[2] Univ Konstanz, Dept Econ, D-78457 Constance, Germany
[3] Univ Konstanz, Dept Psychol, D-78457 Constance, Germany
关键词
Bayesian updating; conservatism; representativeness heuristic; LRP; N2; RESPONSE CONFLICT; SAMPLING APPROACH; BAYES RULE; PROBABILITY; JUDGMENT; ACTIVATION; INFORMATION; PSYCHOLOGY; COMPONENT; ERRORS;
D O I
10.1093/scan/nss099
中图分类号
Q189 [神经科学];
学科分类号
071006 ;
摘要
Rational decision making under uncertainty requires forming beliefs that integrate prior and new information through Bayes' rule. Human decision makers typically deviate from Bayesian updating by either overweighting the prior (conservatism) or overweighting new information (e. g. the representativeness heuristic). We investigated these deviations through measurements of electrocortical activity in the human brain during incentivized probability-updating tasks and found evidence of extremely early commitment to boundedly rational heuristics. Participants who overweight new information display a lower sensibility to conflict detection, captured by an event-related potential (the N2) observed around 260 ms after the presentation of new information. Conservative decision makers (who overweight prior probabilities) make up their mind before new information is presented, as indicated by the lateralized readiness potential in the brain. That is, they do not inhibit the processing of new information but rather immediately rely on the prior for making a decision.
引用
收藏
页码:55 / 62
页数:8
相关论文
共 45 条
[11]   EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis [J].
Delorme, A ;
Makeig, S .
JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE METHODS, 2004, 134 (01) :9-21
[12]   MINERVA-DM: A memory processes model for judgments of likelihood [J].
Dougherty, MRP ;
Gettys, CF ;
Ogden, EE .
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 1999, 106 (01) :180-209
[13]   RESPONSE BIAS EXPLANATION OF CONSERVATIVE HUMAN INFERENCE [J].
DUCHARME, WM .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1970, 85 (01) :66-&
[14]  
Edwards W., 1968, FORMAL REPRESENT HUM
[15]   The lateralized readiness potential as an on-line measure of central response activation processes [J].
Eimer, M .
BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS INSTRUMENTS & COMPUTERS, 1998, 30 (01) :146-156
[16]   Are people Bayesian? Uncovering behavioral strategies [J].
ElGamal, MA ;
Grether, DM .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, 1995, 90 (432) :1137-1145
[17]  
Erev I, 2008, INTUITION IN JUDGMENT AND DECISION MAKING, P135
[18]   Beware of samples! A cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases [J].
Fiedler, K .
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2000, 107 (04) :659-676
[19]   A sampling approach to biases in conditional probability judgments: Beyond base rate neglect and statistical format [J].
Fiedler, K ;
Brinkmann, B ;
Betsch, T ;
Wild, B .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-GENERAL, 2000, 129 (03) :399-418
[20]   THE DEPENDENCE OF THE CONJUNCTION FALLACY ON SUBTLE LINGUISTIC FACTORS [J].
FIEDLER, K .
PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH-PSYCHOLOGISCHE FORSCHUNG, 1988, 50 (02) :123-129