Variability in competitive decision-making speed and quality against exploiting and exploitative opponents

Abstract

A presumption in previous work has been that sub-optimality in competitive performance following loss is the result of a reduction in decision-making time (i.e., post-error speeding). The main goal of this paper is to test the relationship between decision-making speed and quality, with the hypothesis that slowing down decision-making should increase the likelihood of successful performance in cases where a model of opponent domination can be implemented. Across Experiments 1–3, the speed and quality of competitive decision-making was examined in a zero-sum game as a function of the nature of the opponent (unexploitable, exploiting, exploitable). Performance was also examined against the nature of a credit (or token) system used as a within-experimental manipulation (no credit, fixed credit, variable credit). To compliment reaction time variation as a function of outcome, both the fixed credit and variable credit conditions were designed to slow down decision-making, relative to a no credit condition where the game could be played in quick succession and without interruption. The data confirmed that (a) self-imposed reductions in processing time following losses (post-error speeding) were causal factors in determining poorer-quality behaviour, (b) the expression of lose-shift was less flexible than the expression of win-stay, and, (c) the use of a variable credit system may enhance the perceived control participants have against exploitable opponents. Future work should seek to disentangle temporal delay and response interruption as determinants of decision-making quality against numerous styles of opponency.

Post-error Slowing Reflects the Joint Impact of Adaptive and Maladaptive Processes During Decision Making

“…However, even if error punishment is known to increase cautiousness (Potts, 2011 ; Derosiere et al, 2022 ), as desired here, monetary losses also generate an emotional response (Carver, 2006 ; Simoes-Franklin et al, 2010 ; Frijda et al, 2014 ; Eben et al, 2020b ), a sense of frustration increasing with the size of the loss (Gehring and Willoughby, 2002 ; Holroyd et al, 2004 ; Yeung and Sanfey, 2004 ; Eben et al, 2020c ). Importantly, such negative emotion has been shown to induce a post-error acceleration of RTs rather than a slowdown (Verbruggen et al, 2017 ; Dyson et al, 2018 ; Damaso et al, 2020 ; Eben et al, 2020c ; Dyson, 2021 ). Accordingly, several studies have found that subjects act more impulsively after a loss or a non rewarded trial than a rewarded one (Gipson et al, 2012 ; Verbruggen et al, 2017 ; Eben et al, 2020c ).…”

Post-error slowing reflects the joint impact of adaptive and maladaptive processes during decision making

“…However, even if error punishment is known to increase cautiousness (Potts 2011, Derosiere et al 2021b), as desired here, monetary losses also generate an emotional response (Carver 2006, Simoes-Franklin et al 2010, Frijda et al 2014, Eben et al 2020a), a sense of frustration increasing with the size of the loss (Gehring et al 2002, Holroyd et al 2004, Yeung and Sanfey 2004, Eben et al 2020c). Importantly, such negative emotion has been shown to induce a post-error acceleration of RTs rather than a slowdown (Purcell and Kiani 2016, Verbruggen et al 2017, Dyson et al 2018, Damaso et al 2020, Eben et al 2020c, Dyson 2021). Accordingly, several studies have found that subjects act more impulsively after a loss or a nonrewarded trial than a rewarded one (Gipson et al 2012, Verbruggen et al 2017, Eben et al 2020c).…”

A micro-genesis account of longer-form reinforcement learning in structured and unstructured environments

“…Participants from refs. 18,20 were recruited from the undergraduate community at the University of Alberta as part of the Psychology Research Participation scheme, and received performance-independent course credit.…”

“…Specifically, reward mechanisms tend to shape behaviour to a greater degree than punishment mechanisms 12,15 , such that win-stay selections are more frequent than lose-shift within certain simple games (see 16 in the context of cooperative games, see 17 in the context of Matching Pennies). However, RPS can yield an over-use of lose-shift relative to win-stay behaviour [18][19][20][21] .…”