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. Michael Seiler, 2014. "The Effect of Perceived Lender Characteristics and Market Conditions on Strategic Mortgage Defaults," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 256-270, February.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Seema Kacker & Tin Aung & Dominic Montagu & David Bishai, 2021. "Providers preferences towards greater patient health benefit is associated with higher quality of care," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 271-294, September.
    7. Emin Karagözoğlu & Elif Tosun, 2022. "Endogenous Game Choice and Giving Behavior in Distribution Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-32, November.
    8. Bradley J. Ruffle, 2005. "Buyer Countervailing Power: A Survey of Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 0512, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    9. Antonides, Gerrit & Kroft, Maaike, 2005. "Fairness judgments in household decision making," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 902-913, December.
    10. Huang, Jen-Hung & Chang, Ching-Te & Chen, Cathy Yi-Hsuan, 2005. "Perceived fairness of pricing on the Internet," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 343-361, June.
    11. Bodo Schlegelmilch & Magdalena Oberseder, 2007. "Ethical Issues in Global Supply Chains," Symphonya. Emerging Issues in Management, Niccolò Cusano University, issue 2 Ethics .
    12. Erhao Xie, 2019. "Monetary Payoff and Utility Function in Adaptive Learning Models," Staff Working Papers 19-50, Bank of Canada.
    13. Charness, Gary & Du, Ninghua & Yang, Chun-Lei, 2011. "Trust and trustworthiness reputations in an investment game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 361-375, June.
    14. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    15. Tim Benning & Els Breugelmans & Benedict Dellaert, 2012. "Consumers’ evaluation of allocation policies for scarce health care services: Vested interest activation trumps spatial and temporal distance," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 531-543, September.
    16. Alexandre Truc, 2023. "Neuroeconomics: Hype or Hope? An Answer," Post-Print hal-04719266, HAL.
    17. 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.
    18. Handgraaf, Michel J.J. & Dijk, Eric van & Wilke, Henk A.M. & Vermunt, Riel C., 2004. "Evaluability of outcomes in ultimatum bargaining," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 97-106, September.
    19. 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.
    20. Schurle, Bryan W. & Bruce, Amanda S. & Bruce, Jared M. & Zereyesus, Yacob Abrehe, "undated". "Implications of Neuroscience Developments in Understanding Human Behavior for Teaching Agricultural Economics/Agribusiness," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 61289, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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.