Literature DB >> 35404234

Humans actively sample evidence to support prior beliefs.

Paula Kaanders1,2, Pradyumna Sepulveda3, Tomas Folke4,5, Pietro Ortoleva6, Benedetto De Martino3,7.   

Abstract

No one likes to be wrong. Previous research has shown that participants may underweight information incompatible with previous choices, a phenomenon called confirmation bias. In this paper, we argue that a similar bias exists in the way information is actively sought. We investigate how choice influences information gathering using a perceptual choice task and find that participants sample more information from a previously chosen alternative. Furthermore, the higher the confidence in the initial choice, the more biased information sampling becomes. As a consequence, when faced with the possibility of revising an earlier decision, participants are more likely to stick with their original choice, even when incorrect. Critically, we show that agency controls this phenomenon. The effect disappears in a fixed sampling condition where presentation of evidence is controlled by the experimenter, suggesting that the way in which confirmatory evidence is acquired critically impacts the decision process. These results suggest active information acquisition plays a critical role in the propagation of strongly held beliefs over time.
© 2022, Kaanders et al.

Entities:  

Keywords:  confirmation bias; decision-making; human; information sampling; neuroscience

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35404234      PMCID: PMC9038198          DOI: 10.7554/eLife.71768

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Elife        ISSN: 2050-084X            Impact factor:   8.713


  49 in total

1.  Common neural code for reward and information value.

Authors:  Kenji Kobayashi; Ming Hsu
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 2.  Towards a neuroscience of active sampling and curiosity.

Authors:  Jacqueline Gottlieb; Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 34.870

3.  Information about action outcomes differentially affects learning from self-determined versus imposed choices.

Authors:  Valérian Chambon; Héloïse Théro; Marie Vidal; Henri Vandendriessche; Patrick Haggard; Stefano Palminteri
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2020-08-03

4.  Optimal policy for attention-modulated decisions explains human fixation behavior.

Authors:  Anthony I Jang; Ravi Sharma; Jan Drugowitsch
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2021-03-26       Impact factor: 8.140

5.  Dopaminergic genes predict individual differences in susceptibility to confirmation bias.

Authors:  Bradley B Doll; Kent E Hutchison; Michael J Frank
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2011-04-20       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online.

Authors:  Gordon Pennycook; Ziv Epstein; Mohsen Mosleh; Antonio A Arechar; Dean Eckles; David G Rand
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2021-03-17       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  PsychoPy--Psychophysics software in Python.

Authors:  Jonathan W Peirce
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2007-01-23       Impact factor: 2.390

8.  Approach-Induced Biases in Human Information Sampling.

Authors:  Laurence T Hunt; Robb B Rutledge; W M Nishantha Malalasekera; Steven W Kennerley; Raymond J Dolan
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2016-11-10       Impact factor: 8.029

9.  Metacognitive Failure as a Feature of Those Holding Radical Beliefs.

Authors:  Max Rollwage; Raymond J Dolan; Stephen M Fleming
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2018-12-17       Impact factor: 10.834

Review 10.  How to measure metacognition.

Authors:  Stephen M Fleming; Hakwan C Lau
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2014-07-15       Impact factor: 3.169

View more
  3 in total

1.  Humans actively sample evidence to support prior beliefs.

Authors:  Paula Kaanders; Pradyumna Sepulveda; Tomas Folke; Pietro Ortoleva; Benedetto De Martino
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2022-04-11       Impact factor: 8.713

2.  Uncertainty about others' trustworthiness increases during adolescence and guides social information sampling.

Authors:  I Ma; B Westhoff; A C K van Duijvenvoorde
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-05-10       Impact factor: 4.996

3.  Use of Publication Dynamics to Distinguish Cancer Genes and Bystander Genes.

Authors:  László Bányai; Mária Trexler; László Patthy
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-21       Impact factor: 4.141

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.