4.6 Article

How People Use Social Information to Find out What to Want in the Paradigmatic Case of Inter-temporal Preferences

期刊

PLOS COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
卷 12, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004965

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [095844/7/11/Z, 098362/Z/12/Z]
  2. UCLH Biomedical Research Center
  3. Gatsby Charitable Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The weight with which a specific outcome feature contributes to preference quantifies a person's 'taste' for that feature. However, far from being fixed personality characteristics, tastes are plastic. They tend to align, for example, with those of others even if such conformity is not rewarded. We hypothesised that people can be uncertain about their tastes. Personal tastes are therefore uncertain beliefs. People can thus learn about them by considering evidence, such as the preferences of relevant others, and then performing Bayesian updating. If a person's choice variability reflects uncertainty, as in random-preference models, then a signature of Bayesian updating is that the degree of taste change should correlate with that person's choice variability. Temporal discounting coefficients are an important example of taste-for patience. These coefficients quantify impulsivity, have good psychometric properties and can change upon observing others' choices. We examined discounting preferences in a novel, large community study of 14-24 year olds. We assessed discounting behaviour, including decision variability, before and after participants observed another person's choices. We found good evidence for taste uncertainty and for Bayesian taste updating. First, participants displayed decision variability which was better accounted for by a random-taste than by a response-noise model. Second, apparent taste shifts were well described by a Bayesian model taking into account taste uncertainty and the relevance of social information. Our findings have important neuroscientific, clinical and developmental significance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据