In everyday life, the outcomes of our actions are rarely certain. Further, we often lack the information needed to precisely estimate the probability and value of potential outcomes as well as how much effort will be required by the courses of action under consideration. Under such conditions of uncertainty, individual differences in the estimation and weighting of these variables, and in reliance on model-free versus model-based decision making, have the potential to strongly influence our behavior. Both anxiety and depression are associated with difficulties in decision making. Further, anxiety is linked to increased engagement in threat-avoidance behaviors and depression is linked to reduced engagement in reward-seeking behaviors. The precise deficits, or biases, in decision making associated with these common forms of psychopathology remain to be fully specified. In this article, we review evidence for which of the computations supporting decision making are altered in anxiety and depression and consider the potential consequences for action selection. In addition, we provide a schematic framework that integrates the findings reviewed and will hopefully be of value to future studies.
Using a contingency volatility manipulation, we tested the hypothesis that difficulty adapting probabilistic decision-making to second-order uncertainty might reflect a core deficit that cuts across anxiety and depression and holds regardless of whether outcomes are aversive or involve reward gain or loss. We used bifactor modeling of internalizing symptoms to separate symptom variance common to both anxiety and depression from that unique to each. Across two experiments, we modeled performance on a probabilistic decision-making under volatility task using a hierarchical Bayesian framework. Elevated scores on the common internalizing factor, with high loadings across anxiety and depression items, were linked to impoverished adjustment of learning to volatility regardless of whether outcomes involved reward gain, electrical stimulation, or reward loss. In particular, high common factor scores were linked to dampened learning following better-than-expected outcomes in volatile environments. No such relationships were observed for anxiety- or depression-specific symptom factors.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.