Preference-based serial decisions are counterintuitively influenced by emotion regulation and conscientiousness.

Sangsup Yoon, Sewoong Lim, Jaehyung Kwon, Jerald D Kralik, Jaeseung Jeong
Author Information
  1. Sangsup Yoon: Department of Bio and Brain Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Daejeon, Republic of Korea.
  2. Sewoong Lim: Department of Bio and Brain Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Daejeon, Republic of Korea.
  3. Jaehyung Kwon: Department of Bio and Brain Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Daejeon, Republic of Korea.
  4. Jerald D Kralik: Department of Bio and Brain Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Daejeon, Republic of Korea. ORCID
  5. Jaeseung Jeong: Department of Bio and Brain Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Daejeon, Republic of Korea.

Abstract

Our decisions have a temporally distributed order, and different choice orders (e.g., choosing preferred items first or last) can lead to vastly different experiences. We previously found two dominant strategies (favorite-first and favorite-last) in a preference-based serial choice setting (the 'sushi problem'). However, it remains unclear why these two opposite behavioral patterns arise: i.e., the mechanisms underlying them. Here we developed a novel serial-choice task, using pictures based on attractiveness, to test for a possible shared mechanism with delay discounting, the 'peak-end' bias (i.e., preference for experienced sequences that end well), or working-memory capacity. We also collected psychological and clinical metric data on personality, depression, anxiety, and emotion regulation. We again found the two dominant selection strategies. However, the results of the delay, peak-end bias, and memory capacity tasks were not related to serial choice, while two key psychological metrics were: emotion regulation and conscientiousness (with agreeableness also marginally related). Favorite-first strategists actually regulated emotions better, suggesting better tolerance of negative outcomes. Whereas participants with more varied strategies across trials were more conscientious (and perhaps agreeable), suggesting that they were less willing to settle for a single, simpler strategy. Our findings clarify mechanisms underlying serial choice and show that it may reflect a unique ability to organize choices into sequences of events.

References

  1. PLoS Comput Biol. 2014 Aug 14;10(8):e1003759 [PMID: 25122498]
  2. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2010 Oct;35(11):2155-64 [PMID: 20631686]
  3. Neuropsychologia. 2012 Jun;50(7):1578-93 [PMID: 22450197]
  4. J Neurosci. 2015 Sep 23;35(38):13103-9 [PMID: 26400940]
  5. Biol Psychiatry. 2014 Mar 15;75(6):435-48 [PMID: 24041504]
  6. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014 Feb 1;135:152-5 [PMID: 24360649]
  7. PLoS One. 2013 Dec 23;8(12):e83814 [PMID: 24376758]
  8. Appetite. 2014 Jul;78:63-7 [PMID: 24650831]
  9. J Exp Anal Behav. 2004 Jan;81(1):39-50 [PMID: 15113132]
  10. PLoS One. 2014 May 20;9(5):e96653 [PMID: 24846274]
  11. Proc Biol Sci. 2007 Jul 22;274(1619):1751-6 [PMID: 17490943]
  12. Neuroimage. 2013 Jan 15;65:194-208 [PMID: 23063449]
  13. Cogn Neuropsychiatry. 2005 Nov;10(5):379-99 [PMID: 16571468]
  14. J Pers Assess. 1996 Dec;67(3):588-97 [PMID: 8991972]
  15. J Exp Anal Behav. 2001 Sep;76(2):235-43 [PMID: 11599641]
  16. Front Behav Neurosci. 2014 Mar 12;8:76 [PMID: 24659960]
  17. Sci Rep. 2017 Sep 11;7(1):11228 [PMID: 28894106]
  18. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2003 Feb;4(2):139-47 [PMID: 12563285]
  19. Neuron. 2001 Nov 8;32(3):537-51 [PMID: 11709163]
  20. J Gen Psychol. 2010 Jul-Sep;137(3):273-86 [PMID: 20718227]
  21. Behav Res Ther. 2007 Apr;45(4):729-35 [PMID: 16890909]
  22. Front Behav Neurosci. 2009 Jun 11;3:9 [PMID: 19562091]
  23. PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e45945 [PMID: 23077499]
  24. J Cogn Neurosci. 2008 Jun;20(6):941-51 [PMID: 18211242]
  25. Nat Neurosci. 2004 Apr;7(4):411-6 [PMID: 15004563]
  26. Psychol Bull. 2006 Jan;132(1):1-25 [PMID: 16435954]
  27. Neuroimage. 2013 Feb 1;66:223-31 [PMID: 23128082]
  28. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1999 Oct;146(4):447-54 [PMID: 10550495]
  29. Front Hum Neurosci. 2017 Dec 07;11:597 [PMID: 29270120]
  30. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Aug;85(2):348-62 [PMID: 12916575]
  31. Behav Processes. 2008 Mar;77(3):334-42 [PMID: 17919848]
  32. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2013 May;37(4):681-96 [PMID: 23415703]
  33. Horm Behav. 2007 Apr;51(4):524-33 [PMID: 17362952]
  34. Appetite. 2015 Jul;90:254-63 [PMID: 25796210]
  35. Med Decis Making. 1995 Oct-Dec;15(4):373-86 [PMID: 8544681]
  36. Psychon Bull Rev. 2008 Feb;15(1):96-8 [PMID: 18605486]
  37. Cognition. 2014 Mar;130(3):289-99 [PMID: 24374208]

MeSH Term

Adult
Delay Discounting
Emotional Regulation
Healthy Volunteers
Humans
Intuition
Male
Young Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0choicetwoserialestrategiesemotionregulationdecisionsdifferentfounddominantHoweverimechanismsunderlyingdelaybiassequencescapacityalsopsychologicalrelatedconscientiousnessbettersuggestingtemporallydistributedorderordersgchoosingpreferreditemsfirstlastcanleadvastlyexperiencespreviouslyfavorite-firstfavorite-lastpreference-basedsetting'sushiproblem'remainsunclearoppositebehavioralpatternsarise:developednovelserial-choicetaskusingpicturesbasedattractivenesstestpossiblesharedmechanismdiscounting'peak-end'preferenceexperiencedendwellworking-memorycollectedclinicalmetricdatapersonalitydepressionanxietyselectionresultspeak-endmemorytaskskeymetricswere:agreeablenessmarginallyFavorite-firststrategistsactuallyregulatedemotionstolerancenegativeoutcomesWhereasparticipantsvariedacrosstrialsconscientiousperhapsagreeablelesswillingsettlesinglesimplerstrategyfindingsclarifyshowmayreflectuniqueabilityorganizechoiceseventsPreference-basedcounterintuitivelyinfluenced

Similar Articles

Cited By