Preference-based serial decisions are counterintuitively influenced by emotion regulation and conscientiousness

Autoři: Sangsup Yoon aff001;  Sewoong Lim aff001;  Jaehyung Kwon aff001;  Jerald D. Kralik aff001;  Jaeseung Jeong aff001
Působiště autorů: Department of Bio and Brain Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Daejeon, Republic of Korea aff001
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(10)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222797


Our decisions have a temporally distributed order, and different choice orders (e.g., choosing preferred items first or last) can lead to vastly different experiences. We previously found two dominant strategies (favorite-first and favorite-last) in a preference-based serial choice setting (the ‘sushi problem’). However, it remains unclear why these two opposite behavioral patterns arise: i.e., the mechanisms underlying them. Here we developed a novel serial-choice task, using pictures based on attractiveness, to test for a possible shared mechanism with delay discounting, the ‘peak-end’ bias (i.e., preference for experienced sequences that end well), or working-memory capacity. We also collected psychological and clinical metric data on personality, depression, anxiety, and emotion regulation. We again found the two dominant selection strategies. However, the results of the delay, peak-end bias, and memory capacity tasks were not related to serial choice, while two key psychological metrics were: emotion regulation and conscientiousness (with agreeableness also marginally related). Favorite-first strategists actually regulated emotions better, suggesting better tolerance of negative outcomes. Whereas participants with more varied strategies across trials were more conscientious (and perhaps agreeable), suggesting that they were less willing to settle for a single, simpler strategy. Our findings clarify mechanisms underlying serial choice and show that it may reflect a unique ability to organize choices into sequences of events.

Klíčová slova:

Anxiety – Behavior – Decision making – Depression – Emotions – Memory – Psychometrics – Reaction time


1. Jeong J, Oh Y, Chun M, Kralik JD. Preference-Based Serial Decision Dynamics: Your First Sushi Reveals Your Eating Order at the Sushi Table. Matsunami H, editor. PLoS One. 2014;9: e96653. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0096653 24846274

2. Jung K, Kralik JD. Get it while it’s hot: A peak-first bias in self-generated choice order in rhesus macaques. PLoS One. 2013;8. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083814 24376758

3. Blanchard TC, Wolfe LS, Vlaev I, Winston JS, Hayden BY. Biases in preferences for sequences of outcomes in monkeys. Cognition. Elsevier B.V.; 2014;130: 289–299. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.012 24374208

4. Mazur JE. An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. Quantitative analyses of behavior. Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc; 1987.

5. Bickel WK, Odum AL, Madden GJ. Impulsivity and cigarette smoking: delay discounting in current, never, and ex-smokers. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1999;146: 447–454. doi: 10.1007/pl00005490 10550495

6. Story GW, Vlaev I, Seymour B, Darzi A, Dolan RJ. Does temporal discounting explain unhealthy behavior? A systematic review and reinforcement learning perspective. Front Behav Neurosci. 2014;8: 1–20. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00001

7. Hakimi S, Hare TA. Enhanced Neural Responses to Imagined Primary Rewards Predict Reduced Monetary Temporal Discounting. J Neurosci. 2015;35: 13103–13109. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1863-15.2015 26400940

8. Green L, Myerson J, Holt DD, Slevin JR, Estle SJ. Discounting of delayed food rewards in pigeons and rats: is there a magnitude effect? J Exp Anal Behav. 2004;81: 39–50. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2004.81-39 15113132

9. Hwang J. Temporal discounting and inter-temporal choice in rhesus monkeys. Front Behav Neurosci. 2009;3: 1–13. doi: 10.3389/neuro.08.001.2009

10. Whitten WB, Bjork R a. Recency-sensitive retrieval processes in long-term free recall. Cogn Psychol. 1974;6: 173–189.

11. Kahneman D, Fredrickson BL, Schreiber CA, Redelmeier DA. When More Pain Is Preferred to Less: Adding a Better End. Psychol Sci. 1993;4: 401–405. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00589.x

12. DO AM, RUPERT A V., WOLFORD G. Evaluations of pleasurable experiences: The peak-end rule. Psychon Bull Rev. 2008;15: 96–98. doi: 10.3758/PBR.15.1.96 18605486

13. Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY, US: Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2011.

14. Loewenstein GF, Prelec D. Preferences for sequences of outcomes. Psychol Rev. 1993;100: 91–108. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.100.1.91

15. Chapman Gretchen B. Preferences for improving and declining sequences of health outcomes. J Behav Decis Mak. 2000;13: 203–218. Available:;2-S

16. Aharon I, Etcoff N, Ariely D, Chabris CF, O’Connor E, Breiter HC. Beautiful Faces Have Variable Reward Value. Neuron. 2001;32: 537–551. doi: 10.1016/s0896-6273(01)00491-3 11709163

17. Sescousse G, Caldú X, Segura B, Dreher JC. Processing of primary and secondary rewards: A quantitative meta-analysis and review of human functional neuroimaging studies. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. Elsevier Ltd; 2013;37: 681–696. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.02.002 23415703

18. Zeng J, Wang Y, Zhang Q. An ERP Study on Decisions between Attractive Females and Money. PLoS One. 2012;7. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045945 23077499

19. Hayden BY, Parikh PC, Deaner RO, Platt ML. Economic principles motivating social attention in humans. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2007;274: 1751–1756. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2007.0368 17490943

20. Cloutier J, Heatherton TF, Whalen PJ, Kelley WM. Are Attractive People Rewarding? Sex Differences in the Neural Substrates of Facial Attractiveness. J Cogn Neurosci. 2008;20: 941–951. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2008.20062 18211242

21. Rupp HA, Wallen K. Sex differences in viewing sexual stimuli: An eye-tracking study in men and women. Horm Behav. 2007;51: 524–533. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2007.01.008 17362952

22. Hamann S, Herman RA, Nolan CL, Wallen K. Men and women differ in amygdala response to visual sexual stimuli. Nat Neurosci. 2004;7: 411–416. doi: 10.1038/nn1208 15004563

23. Stevens JS, Hamann S. Sex differences in brain activation to emotional stimuli: A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Neuropsychologia. Elsevier Ltd; 2012;50: 1578–1593. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.03.011 22450197

24. Housden CR, O’Sullivan SS, Joyce EM, Lees AJ, Roiser JP. Intact reward learning but elevated delay discounting in Parkinson’s disease patients with impulsive-compulsive spectrum behaviors. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2010;35: 2155–2164. doi: 10.1038/npp.2010.84 20631686

25. Imhoff S, Harris M, Weiser J, Reynolds B. Delay discounting by depressed and non-depressed adolescent smokers and non-smokers. Drug Alcohol Depend. Elsevier Ireland Ltd; 2014;135: 152–155. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.11.014 24360649

26. Jarmolowicz DP, Cherry JBC, Reed DD, Bruce JM, Crespi JM, Lusk JL, et al. Robust relation between temporal discounting rates and body mass. Appetite. Elsevier Ltd; 2014;78: 63–67. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.02.013 24650831

27. Wesley MJ, Bickel WK. Remember the Future II: Meta-analyses and Functional Overlap of Working Memory and Delay Discounting. Biol Psychiatry. Elsevier; 2014;75: 435–448. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.08.008 24041504

28. Myerson J, Green L, Warusawitharana M. Area under the curve as a measure of discounting. J Exp Anal Behav. 2001;76: 235–243. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2001.76-235 11599641

29. John OP, Donahue EM, Kentle RL. The big five inventory—versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California,Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research; 1991.

30. Kim S, Kim J, Yoo J, Bae K, Kim S, Yang S, et al. Standardization and Validation of Big Five Inventory-Korean Version(BFI-K) in Elders. Korean J Biol psychiatry. 2010;17: 15–25.

31. Gross JJ, John OP. Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol. American Psychological Association; 2003;85: 348–362. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348 12916575

32. Lee E, Suh E, Chu T, Kim HS, Sherman DK. Is Emotion Suppression That Bad? Comparing the Emotion Suppression and Subjective Well-being Link in Two Cultures. Korean J Soc Personal Psychol. 2009;23: 131–146. doi: 10.21193/kjspp.2009.23.1.008

33. Beck AT, Steer RA, Ball R, Ranieri W. Comparison of Beck Depression Inventories -IA and -II in psychiatric outpatients. J Pers Assess. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation; 1996;67: 588–97. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa6703_13 8991972

34. Lim SY, Lee EJ, Jeong SW, Kim HC, Jeong CH, Jeon TY, et al. The Validation Study of Beck Depression Scale 2 in Korean Version. Anxiety Mood. 2011;7: 48–53.

35. Spielberger CD, Gorsuch R, Lushene RE, Vagg PR, Jacobs GA. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press. Palo Alto, CA; 1983.

36. DW H, CH L, KK C. Korean adaptation of Spielberger’s STAI (K-STAI). Korean J Heal Psychol. 1996;1: 1–14.

37. Christopher G, MacDonald J. The impact of clinical depression on working memory. Cogn Neuropsychiatry. 2005;10: 379–399. doi: 10.1080/13546800444000128 16571468

38. Hadwin JA, Brogan J, Stevenson J. State anxiety and working memory in children: A test of processing efficiency theory. Educ Psychol. 2005;25: 379–393. doi: 10.1080/01443410500041607

39. Rounds JS, Beck JG, Grant DM. Is the delay discounting paradigm useful in understanding social anxiety? Behav Res Ther. 2007;45: 729–735. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2006.06.007 16890909

40. Bjørnebekk A, Fjell AM, Walhovd KB, Grydeland H, Torgersen S, Westlye LT. Neuronal correlates of the five factor model (FFM) of human personality: Multimodal imaging in a large healthy sample. Neuroimage. Elsevier Inc.; 2013;65: 194–208. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.10.009 23063449

41. Roberts BW, Walton KE, Viechtbauer W. Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychol Bull. 2006;132: 1–25. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1 16435954

42. Charlton SR, Fantino E. Commodity specific rates of temporal discounting: Does metabolic function underlie differences in rates of discounting? Behav Processes. 2008;77: 334–342. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2007.08.002 17919848

43. Weatherly JN, Terrell HK, Derenne A. Delay discounting of different commodities. J Gen Psychol. 2010;137: 273–286. doi: 10.1080/00221309.2010.484449 20718227

44. Spreckelmeyer KN, Rademacher L, Paulus FM, Gründer G. Neural activation during anticipation of opposite-sex and same-sex faces in heterosexual men and women. Neuroimage. Elsevier Inc.; 2013;66: 223–231. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.10.068 23128082

45. Manippa V, Padulo C, van der Laan LN, Brancucci A. Gender Differences in Food Choice: Effects of Superior Temporal Sulcus Stimulation. Front Hum Neurosci. 2017;11: 1–9. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00001

46. Wood JN, Grafman J. Human prefrontal cortex: Processing and representational perspectives. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2003;4: 139–147. doi: 10.1038/nrn1033 12563285

47. Chapman GB, Elstein AS. Valuing the Future. Med Decis Mak. 1995;15: 373–386. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9501500408 8544681

48. Montgomery NV, Unnava HR. Temporal Sequence Effects: A Memory Framework. J Consum Res. 2009;36: 83–92. doi: 10.1086/595278

49. Geng X, Chen Z, Lam W, Zheng Q. Hedonic Evaluation over Short and Long Retention Intervals: The Mechanism of the Peak-End Rule. J Behav Decis Mak. 2013;26: 225–236. doi: 10.1002/bdm.1755

50. Baek K, Kwon J, Chae J-H, Chung YA, Kralik JD, Min J-A, et al. Heightened aversion to risk and loss in depressed patients with a suicide attempt history. Sci Rep. Springer US; 2017;7: 11228. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-10541-5 28894106

51. Ratner RK, Kahn BE, Kahneman D. Choosing Less‐Preferred Experiences For the Sake of Variety. J Consum Res. 1999;26: 1–15. doi: 10.1086/209547

52. Jung K, Jang H, Kralik JD, Jeong J. Bursts and Heavy Tails in Temporal and Sequential Dynamics of Foraging Decisions. PLoS Comput Biol. 2014;10: 27–31. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003759 25122498

53. Hendrickson KL, Rasmussen EB, Lawyer SR. Measurement and validation of measures for impulsive food choice across obese and healthy-weight individuals. Appetite. Elsevier Ltd; 2015;90: 254–263. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.03.015 25796210

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 10