IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1010326.html

The computational relationship between reinforcement learning, social inference, and paranoia

Author

Listed:
  • Joseph M Barnby
  • Mitul A Mehta
  • Michael Moutoussis

Abstract

Theoretical accounts suggest heightened uncertainty about the state of the world underpin aberrant belief updates, which in turn increase the risk of developing a persecutory delusion. However, this raises the question as to how an agent’s uncertainty may relate to the precise phenomenology of paranoia, as opposed to other qualitatively different forms of belief. We tested whether the same population (n = 693) responded similarly to non-social and social contingency changes in a probabilistic reversal learning task and a modified repeated reversal Dictator game, and the impact of paranoia on both. We fitted computational models that included closely related parameters that quantified the rigidity across contingency reversals and the uncertainty about the environment/partner. Consistent with prior work we show that paranoia was associated with uncertainty around a partner’s behavioural policy and rigidity in harmful intent attributions in the social task. In the non-social task we found that pre-existing paranoia was associated with larger decision temperatures and commitment to suboptimal cards. We show relationships between decision temperature in the non-social task and priors over harmful intent attributions and uncertainty over beliefs about partners in the social task. Our results converge across both classes of model, suggesting paranoia is associated with a general uncertainty over the state of the world (and agents within it) that takes longer to resolve, although we demonstrate that this uncertainty is expressed asymmetrically in social contexts. Our model and data allow the representation of sociocognitive mechanisms that explain persecutory delusions and provide testable, phenomenologically relevant predictions for causal experiments.Author summary: Responding to shifts in inanimate and social environments is important for adaptation and appropriate communication. Studies have demonstrated generic cognitive distortions to the processing of information in shifting contexts to underpin or accompany the development of symptoms of severe mental disorders, such as persecutory delusions. However, given the clear social phenomenology and clinical needs regarding social function which accompany persecutory delusions, explanations that detail how changes in generic cognition dovetail with social cognition are urgently needed. We addressed this gap by measuring the relationship between computational mechanisms governing non-social decision making and social inferences upon reversal of task contingencies, and the impact of pre-existing paranoia. We found that paranoia was related to uncertainty in both non-social and social contexts, and crucially, increased non-social uncertainty was related to changes in sociocognitive parameters. Paranoia was related to context-dependent, asymmetric biases in prior beliefs and belief-updating in social contexts. Importantly, paranoia increased the propensity to explain behaviour shifting away from beliefs about harm intent through alternative attributions. Our model and data bridges non-social and social theory explaining persecutory delusions and provides a mechanistic, phenomenologically relevant framework for causal experiments.

Suggested Citation

  • Joseph M Barnby & Mitul A Mehta & Michael Moutoussis, 2022. "The computational relationship between reinforcement learning, social inference, and paranoia," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-26, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1010326
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010326
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010326
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010326&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010326?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Katherine Newman-Taylor & Thomas Richardson & Monica Sood & Mat Sopp & Emma Perry & Helen Bolderston, 2020. "Cognitive mechanisms in cannabis-related paranoia; Initial testing and model proposal," Psychosis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(4), pages 314-327, October.
    2. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1986. "Fairness and the Assumptions of Economics," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 285-300, October.
    3. Payam Piray & Amir Dezfouli & Tom Heskes & Michael J Frank & Nathaniel D Daw, 2019. "Hierarchical Bayesian inference for concurrent model fitting and comparison for group studies," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-34, June.
    4. Nichola J Raihani & Ruth Mace & Shakti Lamba, 2013. "The Effect of $1, $5 and $10 Stakes in an Online Dictator Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-1, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Larney, Andrea & Rotella, Amanda & Barclay, Pat, 2019. "Stake size effects in ultimatum game and dictator game offers: A meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 61-72.
    2. Armenak Antinyan, 2014. "Loss and Other-Regarding Preferences: Evidence From Dictator Game," Working Papers 03, Venice School of Management - Department of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.
    3. Burks, Stephen V. & Carpenter, Jeffrey P. & Verhoogen, Eric, 2003. "Playing both roles in the trust game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 195-216, June.
    4. David Rea & Craig Froehle & Suzanne Masterson & Brian Stettler & Gregory Fermann & Arthur Pancioli, 2021. "Unequal but Fair: Incorporating Distributive Justice in Operational Allocation Models," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(7), pages 2304-2320, July.
    5. Emin Karagözoğlu & Elif Tosun, 2022. "Endogenous Game Choice and Giving Behavior in Distribution Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-32, November.
    6. Antonides, Gerrit & Kroft, Maaike, 2005. "Fairness judgments in household decision making," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 902-913, December.
    7. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    8. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    9. Nebiyou Tilahun & David Levinson, 2013. "Selfishness and altruism in the distribution of travel time and income," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 1043-1061, September.
    10. Christopher Boyce & Mikolaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Charles Noussair & Michael Townsend & Steve Tucker, 2015. "The effects of emotions on preferences and choices for public goods," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2015-08, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    11. Song, Fei, 2009. "Intergroup trust and reciprocity in strategic interactions: Effects of group decision-making mechanisms," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 164-173, January.
    12. Pamela Jakiela & Edward Miguel & Vera Velde, 2015. "You’ve earned it: estimating the impact of human capital on social preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 385-407, September.
    13. Kemp, Simon & Bolle, Friedel, 1999. "Preferences in distributing scarce goods," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 105-120, February.
    14. Byford, Martin C., 2015. "A theoretical foundation for the undercut-proof equilibrium," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PA), pages 209-220.
    15. Steven Pressman, 2014. "A Tax Reform That Falls Flat," Challenge, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(4), pages 82-102.
    16. Sezer Ülkü & Chris Hydock & Shiliang Cui, 2022. "Social Queues (Cues): Impact of Others’ Waiting in Line on One’s Service Time," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(11), pages 7958-7976, November.
    17. Bracht, Juergen & Feltovich, Nick, 2009. "Whatever you say, your reputation precedes you: Observation and cheap talk in the trust game," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(9-10), pages 1036-1044, October.
    18. Sauermann, Jan & Beckmann, Paul, 2019. "The influence of group size on distributional fairness under voting by veto," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 90-102.
    19. Pamela Jakiela, 2013. "Equity vs. efficiency vs. self-interest: on the use of dictator games to measure distributional preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(2), pages 208-221, June.
    20. Bartoš, Vojtěch, 2021. "Seasonal scarcity and sharing norms," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 303-316.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1010326. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.