Previous research has indicated a bias in memory-based decision-making, with people preferring options that they remember better. However, the cognitive mechanisms underlying this memory bias remain elusive. Here, we propose that choosing poorly remembered options is conceptually similar to choosing options with uncertain outcomes. We predicted that the memory bias would be reduced when options had negative subjective value, analogous to the reflection effect, according to which uncertainty aversion is stronger in gains than in losses. In two preregistered experiments (N = 36 each), participants made memory-based decisions between appetitive and aversive stimuli. People preferred better-remembered options in the gain domain, but this behavioral pattern reversed in the loss domain. This effect was not related to participants’ ambiguity or risk attitudes, as measured in a separate task. Our results increase the understanding of memory-based decision-making and connect this emerging field to well-established research on decisions under uncertainty.
Al-RfouR.AlainG.AlmahairiA.AngermuellerC.BahdanauD.BallasN.. . .ZhangY. (2016). Theano: A Python framework for fast computation of mathematical expressions. ArXiv. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.02688
2.
BakkourA.PalomboD. J.ZylberbergA.KangY. H.ReidA.VerfaellieM.. . . ShohamyD. (2019). The hippocampus supports deliberation during value-based decisions. eLife, 8, Article 46080. doi:10.7554/elife.46080
3.
BlaisA.-R.WeberE. U. (2006). A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations. Judgment and Decision Making, 1, 33–47.
4.
BoehmU.MarsmanM.MatzkeD.WagenmakersE.-J. (2018). On the importance of avoiding shortcuts in applying cognitive models to hierarchical data. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 1614–1631. doi:10.3758/s13428-018-1054-3
5.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.
6.
FeldmanHallO.GlimcherP.BakerA. L.PhelpsE. A. (2016). Emotion and decision-making under uncertainty: Physiological arousal predicts increased gambling during ambiguity but not risk. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 1255–1262. doi:10.1037/xge0000205
7.
FreyR.PedroniA.MataR.RieskampJ.HertwigR. (2017). Risk preference shares the psychometric structure of major psychological traits. Science Advances, 3(10), Article e1701381. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1701381
8.
GershmanS. J.DawN. D. (2017). Reinforcement learning and episodic memory in humans and animals: An integrative framework. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 101–128. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033625
9.
GluthS.SommerT.RieskampJ.BüchelC. (2015). Effective connectivity between hippocampus and ventromedial prefrontal cortex controls preferential choices from memory. Neuron, 86, 1078–1090. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.04.023
10.
Gordóvil-MerinoA.Guàrdia-OlmosJ.Peró-CebolleroM. (2012). Estimation of logistic regression models in small samples. A simulation study using a weakly informative default prior distribution. Psicológica, 33, 345–361.
11.
HarrisC. R.MillmanK. J.van der WaltS. J.GommersR.VirtanenP.CournapeauD.. . .OliphantT. E. (2020). Array programming with NumPy. Nature, 585, 357–362. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2
12.
HsuM.BhattM.AdolphsR.TranelD.CamererC. F. (2005). Neural systems responding to degree of uncertainty in human decision-making. Science, 310, 1680–1683. doi:10.1126/science.1115327
13.
HuettelS. A.StoweC. J.GordonE. M.WarnerB. T.PlattM. L. (2006). Neural signatures of economic preferences for risk and ambiguity. Neuron, 49, 765–775. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2006.01.024
14.
KahnB. E.SarinR. K. (1988). Modeling ambiguity in decisions under uncertainty. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 265–272. doi:10.1086/209163
15.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–292. doi:10.2307/1914185
16.
KruschkeJ. K. (2010). What to believe: Bayesian methods for data analysis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 293–300. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.001
17.
KruschkeJ. K. (2014). Doing Bayesian data analysis: A tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
18.
KurdiB.LozanoS.BanajiM. R. (2017). Introducing the Open Affective Standardized Image Set (OASIS). Behavior Research Methods, 49, 457–470. doi:10.3758/s13428-016-0715-3
19.
LevyI.SnellJ.NelsonA. J.RustichiniA.GlimcherP. W. (2010). Neural representation of subjective value under risk and ambiguity. Journal of Neurophysiology, 103, 1036–1047. doi:10.1152/jn.00853.2009
McNeishD. (2016). On using Bayesian methods to address small sample problems. Structural Equation Modeling, 23, 750–773. doi:10.1080/10705511.2016.1186549
23.
Mechera-OstrovskyT.GluthS. (2018). Memory beliefs drive the memory bias on value-based decisions. Scientific Reports, 8(1), Article 10592. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-28728-9
24.
MohrP. N. C.BieleG.HeekerenH. R. (2010). Neural processing of risk. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 6613–6619. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0003-10.2010
25.
MorrissJ.GellM.van ReekumC. M. (2019). The uncertain brain: A co-ordinate based meta-analysis of the neural signatures supporting uncertainty during different contexts. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 96, 241–249. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.12.013
26.
MurtyV.FeldmanHallO.HunterL. E.PhelpsE. A.DavachiL. (2016). Episodic memories predict adaptive value-based decision-making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 548–558. doi:10.1037/xge0000158
27.
NitschkeJ. B.SarinopoulosI.MackiewiczK. L.SchaeferH. S.DavidsonR. J. (2006). Functional neuroanatomy of aversion and its anticipation. NeuroImage, 29, 106–116. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.06.068
28.
NybergL.LövdénM.RiklundK.LindenbergerU.BäckmanL. (2012). Memory aging and brain maintenance. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 292–305. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.04.005
29.
R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.6.1) [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
SalvatierJ.WieckiT. V.FonnesbeckC. (2016). Probabilistic programming in Python using PyMC3. PeerJ Computer Science, 2, Article e55. doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.55
32.
ShadlenM. N.ShohamyD. (2016). Decision making and sequential sampling from memory. Neuron, 90, 927–939. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2016.04.036
33.
Stan Development Team. (2019). RStan: the R interface to Stan. Retrieved from http://mc-stan.org/
34.
StewartN.ScheibehenneB.PachurT. (2018). Psychological parameters have units: A bug fix for stochastic prospect theory and other decision models. PsyArXiv. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qvgcd
35.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458. doi:10.1126/science.7455683
36.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323. doi:10.1007/BF00122574
37.
TymulaA.Rosenberg BelmakerL. A.RudermanL.GlimcherP. W.LevyI. (2013). Like cognitive function, decision making across the life span shows profound age-related changes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 110, 17143–17148. doi:10.1073/pnas.1309909110
38.
van DoornJ.van den BerghD.BohmU.DablanderF.DerksK.DrawsT.. . . WagenmakersE.-J. (2020). The JASP guidelines for conducting and reporting a Bayesian analysis. PsyArXiv. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/yqxfr
39.
Van RossumG.DrakeF. L. (2009). Python 3 reference manual. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace.
40.
ViscusiW. K.MagatW. A. (1992). Bayesian decisions with ambiguous belief aversion. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 371–387. doi:10.1007/BF00122576
41.
WagenmakersE.-J.MarsmanM.JamilT.LyA.VerhagenJ.LoveJ.. . . MoreyR. D. (2018). Bayesian inference for psychology. Part I: Theoretical advantages and practical ramifications. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 25, 35–57. doi:10.3758/s13423-017-1343-3
42.
WeberE. U.BlaisA. R.BetzN. E. (2002). A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 263–290. doi:10.1002/bdm.414
43.
WeberE. U.JohnsonE. J. (2006). Constructing preferences from memory. In LichtensteinS.SlovicP. (Eds.), The construction of preference (pp. 397–410). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
44.
WeilbächerR.GluthS. (2017). The interplay of hippocampus and ventromedial prefrontal cortex in memory-based decision making. Brain Sciences, 7(12), Article 4. doi:10.3390/brainsci7010004
45.
WickhamH. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
46.
WimmerG. E.BüchelC. (2016). Reactivation of reward-related patterns from single past episodes supports memory-based decision making. The Journal of Neuroscience, 36, 2868–2880. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3433-15.2016
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
