A Reward-Based Framework of Perceived Control

Abstract

Perceived control can be broadly defined as the belief in one’s ability to exert control over situations or events. It has long been known that perceived control is a major contributor toward mental and physical health as well as a strong predictor of achievements in life. However, one issue that limits a mechanistic understanding of perceived control is the heterogeneity of how the term is defined in models in psychology and neuroscience, and used in experimental settings across a wide spectrum of studies. Here, we propose a framework for studying perceived control by integrating the ideas from traditionally separate work on perceived control. Specifically, we discuss key properties of perceived control from a reward-based framework, including choice opportunity, instrumental contingency, and success/reward rate. We argue that these separate reward-related processes are integral to fostering an enhanced perception of control and influencing an individual’s behavior and well-being. We draw on select studies to elucidate how these reward-related elements are implicated separately and collectively in the investigation of perceived control. We highlight the role of dopamine within corticostriatal pathways shared by reward-related processes and perceived control. Finally, through the lens of this reward-based framework of perceived control, we consider the implications of perceived control in clinical deficits and how these insights could help us better understand psychopathology and treatment options.

The Pursuit of Pride: Outcomes achieved under Beliefs of Internal Control shape positive Affect and neural Dynamics in the vmPFC

“…This is 401 supported by previous studies showing activation differences in vmPFC for the anticipation of choice vs. 402 non-choice (Leotti & Delgado, 2011). However, the core feature of our study was a condition supplying 403 participants with an internal model of how their behavior maps to outcomes, extending the concept of 404 SPC beyond merely having a choice (Ly et al, 2019). Rather, the high SPC condition in our task suggested 405 that the subjects' performance determined whether or not a goal was reached.…”

“…This association remained significant 312 even after controlling for various control variables such as expended effort or perceived winning 313 probabilities (see Supplement 1 -table S4). This extends previous results showing that mere choice is 314 preferable to not having choices by highlighting the notion of instrumental control over the outcomes for 315 building preferences (Ly et al, 2019), and emphasizing that self-related positive affect is a relevant factor 316 for motivated behavior (Williams & DeSteno, 2008). 317…”

“…407subjects and increased functional coupling of the vmPFC with VS. Hence, vmPFC might serve the 408 integration of outcome information with representations of one's abilities(Chavez & Heatherton, 2013; 409 D'Argembeau, 2013;Kuzmanovic et al, 2016), potentially driving differences in behavioral preferences for 410 subjectively more or less controllable tasks(Bartra et al, 2013;Ly et al, 2019;Maier & Seligman, 2016). 411Future research could follow this path by assessing directly how SPC-dependent outcome valuation 412 translates into behavioral preferences in subsequent choice situations and how this might be mediated 413 neurally by processing of subjective value in the vmPFC.…”

The value of choice facilitates subsequent memory across development

“…Though we did not find any main effect of agency, a parsimonious account of the seemingly disparate findings of these two studies may be that memory is prioritized for information encoded with the greatest relative degree of control. Inferences of control have been proposed to take into account multiple properties that can be conceptualized as conferring incrementally greater levels of control (Huys & Dayan, 2009;Ly, Wang, Bhanji, & Delgado, 2019). At the most basic level, the opportunity to choose an action confers a minimal degree of control, with contingent relationships between actions and distinct outcomes, and the ability to obtain higher levels of reward through contingent action each increasing control estimates.…”

Intermittent Absence of Control during Reinforcement Learning Interferes with Pavlovian Bias in Action Selection

“…These (in)action tendencies are controlled by the Pavlovian valuation system, and can be extremely beneficial when agents are required to act or suppress their actions rapidly, without deliberate evaluation of the situation (e.g., halting before stepping on the road if a fast vehicle is approaching). However, Pavlovian influences over instrumental responses can also introduce conflict in decision-making (e.g., eating a delicious-looking cake when one is on a diet), hindering participants' performance under various circumstances (Cavanagh, Eisenberg, Guitart-Masip, Huys, & Frank, 2013;Guitart-Masip et al, 2012;Huys et al, 2012;Swart et al, 2018). In these situations, Pavlovian bias can either exert synergistic or antagonistic effects with other valuation systems that control habitual and goal-directed responding (Dayan & Berridge, 2014).…”