scholarly journals The Effect of Positive and Negative Feedback on Risk-Taking across Different Contexts

PLoS ONE ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e0139010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annabel B. Losecaat Vermeer ◽  
Alan G. Sanfey
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wataru Toyokawa ◽  
Wolfgang Gaissmaier

AbstractGiven the ubiquity of potentially adverse biases incurred by trial-and-error learning, it seems paradoxical that improvements in decision-making performance through conformist social learning, a process widely considered to be bias amplification, still prevail in animal behaviour. Here we show, through model analyses and online experiments with 467 adult human subjects, that conformity can promote favourable risk taking in repeated decision making, even though many individuals are systematically biased towards suboptimal risk aversion owing to the myopia of reinforcement learning. Although positive feedback conferred by conformity could result in suboptimal informational cascades, our dynamic model of behaviour identified a key role for negative feedback that arises when a weak minority influence undermines the inherent behavioural bias. This ‘collective behavioural rescue’, emerging through coordination of positive and negative feedback, highlights a benefit of social learning in a broader range of environmental conditions than previously assumed and resolves the ostensible paradox of adaptive collective flexibility through conformity.


2021 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah E. A. MacGregor ◽  
Aislinn Cottage ◽  
Christos C. Ioannou

Abstract Consistent inter-individual variation in behaviour within a population, widely referred to as personality variation, can be affected by environmental context. Feedbacks between an individual’s behaviour and state can strengthen (positive feedback) or weaken (negative feedback) individual differences when experiences such as predator encounters or winning contests are dependent on behavioural type. We examined the influence of foraging on individual-level consistency in refuge use (a measure of risk-taking, i.e. boldness) in three-spined sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus, and particularly whether changes in refuge use depended on boldness measured under control conditions. In the control treatment trials with no food, individuals were repeatable in refuge use across repeated trials, and this behavioural consistency did not differ between the start and end of these trials. In contrast, when food was available, individuals showed a higher degree of consistency in refuge use at the start of the trials versus controls but this consistency significantly reduced by the end of the trials. The effect of the opportunity to forage was dependent on behavioural type, with bolder fish varying more in their refuge use between the start and the end of the feeding trials than shyer fish, and boldness positively predicted the likelihood of feeding at the start but not at the end of the trials. This suggests a state-behaviour feedback, but there was no overall trend in how bolder individuals changed their behaviour. Our study shows that personality variation can be suppressed in foraging contexts and a potential but unpredictable role of feedbacks between state and behaviour. Significance statement In this experimental study, we examined how foraging influences consistency in risk-taking in individual three-spined sticklebacks. We show that bolder individuals become less consistent in their risk-taking behaviour than shyer individuals during foraging. Some bolder individuals reinforce their risk-taking behaviour, suggesting a positive feedback between state and behaviour, while others converge on the behaviour of shyer individuals, suggesting a negative feedback. In support of a role of satiation in driving negative feedback effects, we found that bolder individuals were more likely to feed at the start but not at the end of the trials. Overall, our findings suggest that foraging can influence personality variation in risk-taking behaviour; however, the role of feedbacks may be unpredictable.


2019 ◽  
Vol 120 ◽  
pp. 253-261
Author(s):  
Shufeng Hao ◽  
Chongyang Shi ◽  
Zhendong Niu ◽  
Longbing Cao

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document