바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.30 No.2

Citation Share

The Difference Caused by Reward Context: In Similarity Dependent Decision Making

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2018, v.30 no.2, pp.183-202
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2018.30.2.006


& (2018). The Difference Caused by Reward Context: In Similarity Dependent Decision Making. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 30(2), 183-202, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2018.30.2.006

Abstract

This study is about generalization of expected value on similar stimulus. From precedent study about perception, it is known that generalization curve of loss context is wider than gain context. In this study, we were interested in the effect of reward context on transfer of expected value in similar stimulus which is easy to be discriminated to original. The experiment was divided to learning phase and decision phase. In learning phase, participants learned association between orientation and rewards, and in decision phase, they valued willingness to bet on stimulus those are similar to learned stimulus. As a results, there was a transfer of expected value on similar stimulus. Also, the strength of willingness to bet was depend on the degree of similarity. There was no significant difference between gain and loss context. However, when modifying condition to be biased to gain, the difference of strength of willing to gamble did not shown. It seems that minor loss cannot cause loss aversion behavior in gain context. Also, even if the gain is much bigger than loss, there is no significant much stronger tendency of gain seeking.

keywords
의사 결정, 손실 회피 성향, 손실 주의, 일반화, decision making, loss aversion, loss attentional model, generalization

Reference

1.

Davis T, Xue G, Love BC, Preston AR, Poldrack RA. (2014) Global neural pattern similarity as a common basis for categorization and recognition memory. J Neurosci 34, 7472-7484.

2.

Ert, E., & Erev, I. (2008). The rejection of attractive gambles, loss aversion, and the lemon avoidance heuristic. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29(5), 715-723.

3.

Ert, E., & Erev, I. (2013). On the descriptive value of loss aversion in decisions under risk: Six clarifications.

4.

Ghirlanda, S., & Enquist, M. (2003). A century of generalization. Anim Behav 66, 15-36.

5.

Green, D, M., & Swets, J. (1989). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. Los Altos, CA: Peninsula Publishing.

6.

Guttman, N., & Kalish, H, I. (1956). Discriminability and stimulus generalization. J Exp Psychol 51, 79-88.

7.

Hochman, G., Glöckner, A., & Yechiam, E. (2010). Physiological measures in identifying decision strategies. Foundations for tracing intuition: Challenges and methods, 139-159.

8.

Hochman, G., & Yechiam, E. (2011). Loss aversion in the eye and in the heart: The autonomic nervous system's responses to losses. Journal of behavioral decision making, 24(2), 140-156.

9.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk, Econometrica, vol. 47, pp 263-291.

10.

Kahnt, T., Park, S. Q., Burke, C. J., & Tobler, P. N. (2012). How glitter relates to gold: similarity-dependent reward prediction errors in the human striatum. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(46), 16521-16529.

11.

Laufer, O., & Paz, R. (2012). Monetary loss alters perceptual thresholds and compromises future decisions via amygdala and prefrontal networks. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(18), 6304- 6311.

12.

Mowrer, O. (1960). Learning theory and behavior.

13.

Pearce, J. M., Esber, G. R., George, D. N., & Haselgrove, M. (2008). The nature of discrimination learning in pigeons. Learning & Behavior, 36(3), 188-199.

14.

Pollak, S. D., & Kistler, D. J. (2002). Early experience is associated with the development of categorical representations for facial expressions of emotion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(13), 9072- 9076.

15.

Rosielle, L. J., & Cooper, E. E. (2001). Categorical perception of relative orientation in visual object recognition. Memory & Cognition, 29(1), 68-82.

16.

Satterthwaite, T. D., Green, L., Myerson, J., Parker, J., Ramaratnam, M., & Buckner, R. L. (2007). Dissociable but inter-related systems of cognitive control and reward during decision making: evidence from pupillometry and event-related fMRI. Neuroimage, 37(3), 1017-1031.

17.

Schechtman, E., Laufer, O., & Paz, R. (2010). Negative valence widens generalization of learning. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(31), 10460- 10464.

18.

Shepard, R. N. (1987). Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science, 237(4820), 1317-1323.

19.

Tenenbaum, J. B., & Griffiths, T. L. (2001). Generalization, similarity, and Bayesian inference. Behavioral and brain sciences, 24(4), 629-640.

20.

Walasek, L., & Stewart, N. (2015). How to make loss aversion disappear and reverse: Tests of the decision by sampling origin of loss aversion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 7.

21.

Wickens, T. D. (2002). Elementary signal detection theory. Oxford University Press, USA.

22.

Yechiam, E., & Telpaz, A. (2011). To take risk is to face loss: a tonic pupillometry study. Frontiers in psychology, 2, 344.

23.

Yechiam, E., & Hochman, G. (2013). Losses as modulators of attention: Review and analysis of the unique effects of losses over gains. Psychological bulletin, 139(2), 497.

24.

Yechiam, E., Retzer, M., Telpaz, A., & Hochman, G. (2015). Losses as ecological guides: Minor losses lead to maximization and not to avoidance. Cognition, 139, 10-17.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy