Individual differences of conflict monitoring and feedback processing during reinforcement learning in a mock forensic context

Abstract

This study investigated individual differences of conflict monitoring (N2 component), feedback processing (feedback negativity component), and reinforcement learning in a discrimination learning task using a mock (fictitious) forensic scenario to set participants in a semantic task context. We investigated individual differences of anxiety-related, impulsivity-related traits and reasoning ability during trial-and-error learning of mock suspect and nonsuspect faces. Thereby, we asked how the differential investment of cognitive-motivational processes facilitates learning in a mock forensic context. As learning can be studied by means of time-on-task effects (i.e., variations of cognitive processes across task blocks), we investigated the differential investment of cognitive-motivational processes block-wise in N = 100 participants. By performing structural equation modeling, we demonstrate that conflict monitoring decreased across task blocks, whereas the percentage of correct responses increased across task blocks. Individuals with higher reasoning scores and higher impulsivity-related traits relied rather on feedback processing (i.e., external indicators) during reinforcement learning. Individuals with higher anxiety-related traits intensified their conflict monitoring throughout the task to learn successfully. Observation by relevant others intensified conflict monitoring more than nonobservation. Our data highlight that individual differences and social context modulate the intensity of information processing in a discrimination learning task using a mock forensic task scenario. We discuss our data with regard to recent cognitivemotivational approaches and in terms of reinforcement learning.

Construct validity of questionnaires for the original and revised reinforcement sensitivity theory

“…To disentangle trait-BIS or trait-BAS responses the BIS/BAS scales, the RST-PQ and the CMQ-cognitive demand scale are sufficient psychometric candidates. The Carver-White BIS/BAS scales are required to psychometrically compare results on BAS subscales ( Reuter et al, 2015 ) and individual differences on the N2 ( Leue et al, 2012 , 2014 , 2020 ). Future research on (r)RST questionnaires might also investigate other statistical models like multiple group CFAs to compare the (r)RST personality scales for configural, metric and scalar invariances and group factors like gender ( Seib-Pfeifer et al, 2017 ; Hein et al, 2021 ).…”