The challenge of learning adaptive mental behavior.

IF 3.1 Q2 PSYCHIATRY Journal of psychopathology and clinical science Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-30 DOI:10.1037/abn0000924
Peter F Hitchcock, Michael J Frank
{"title":"The challenge of learning adaptive mental behavior.","authors":"Peter F Hitchcock, Michael J Frank","doi":"10.1037/abn0000924","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Many psychotherapies aim to help people replace maladaptive mental behaviors (such as those leading to unproductive worry) with more adaptive ones (such as those leading to active problem solving). Yet, little is known empirically about how challenging it is to learn adaptive mental behaviors. Mental behaviors entail taking mental operations and thus may be more challenging to perform than motor actions; this challenge may enhance or impair learning. In particular, challenge when learning is often desirable because it improves retention. Yet, it is also plausible that the necessity of carrying out mental operations interferes with learning the expected values of mental actions by impeding credit assignment: the process of updating an action's value after reinforcement. Then, it may be more challenging not only to perform-but also to learn the consequences of-mental (vs. motor) behaviors. We designed a task to assess learning to take adaptive mental versus motor actions via matched probabilistic feedback. In two experiments (<i>N</i> = 300), most participants found it more difficult to learn to select optimal mental (vs. motor) actions, as evident in worse accuracy not only in a learning but also test (retention) phase. Computational modeling traced this impairment to an indicator of worse credit assignment (impaired construction and maintenance of expected values) when learning mental actions, accounting for worse accuracy in the learning and retention phases. The results suggest that people have particular difficulty learning adaptive mental behavior and pave the way for novel interventions to scaffold credit assignment and promote adaptive thinking. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":73914,"journal":{"name":"Journal of psychopathology and clinical science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11229419/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of psychopathology and clinical science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000924","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many psychotherapies aim to help people replace maladaptive mental behaviors (such as those leading to unproductive worry) with more adaptive ones (such as those leading to active problem solving). Yet, little is known empirically about how challenging it is to learn adaptive mental behaviors. Mental behaviors entail taking mental operations and thus may be more challenging to perform than motor actions; this challenge may enhance or impair learning. In particular, challenge when learning is often desirable because it improves retention. Yet, it is also plausible that the necessity of carrying out mental operations interferes with learning the expected values of mental actions by impeding credit assignment: the process of updating an action's value after reinforcement. Then, it may be more challenging not only to perform-but also to learn the consequences of-mental (vs. motor) behaviors. We designed a task to assess learning to take adaptive mental versus motor actions via matched probabilistic feedback. In two experiments (N = 300), most participants found it more difficult to learn to select optimal mental (vs. motor) actions, as evident in worse accuracy not only in a learning but also test (retention) phase. Computational modeling traced this impairment to an indicator of worse credit assignment (impaired construction and maintenance of expected values) when learning mental actions, accounting for worse accuracy in the learning and retention phases. The results suggest that people have particular difficulty learning adaptive mental behavior and pave the way for novel interventions to scaffold credit assignment and promote adaptive thinking. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
学习适应性心理行为的挑战
许多心理疗法都旨在帮助人们用适应性更强的心理行为(如积极解决问题的心理行为)取代不适应性心理行为(如导致无益担忧的心理行为)。然而,对于学习适应性心理行为有多大的挑战性,人们却知之甚少。心理行为需要进行心理操作,因此可能比动作行为更具挑战性;这种挑战性可能会增强或削弱学习效果。尤其是,学习过程中的挑战性往往是可取的,因为它能提高学习效果。然而,进行心理操作的必要性也有可能通过阻碍学分分配(即强化后更新动作价值的过程)来干扰心理动作预期价值的学习。因此,进行心理行为(相对于运动行为)和学习心理行为的后果可能都更具挑战性。我们设计了一项任务,通过匹配概率反馈来评估学习采取适应性心理行为与运动行为的情况。在两次实验中(N = 300),大多数参与者发现学习选择最佳心理(与运动)行为更加困难,这不仅表现在学习阶段,还表现在测试(保持)阶段的准确性更差。计算建模将这种障碍追溯到学习心理动作时更差的学分分配指标(预期值的构建和保持受损),从而解释了学习和保持阶段更差的准确性。这些结果表明,人们在学习适应性心理行为时会遇到特别的困难,这也为采取新的干预措施来加强学分分配和促进适应性思维铺平了道路。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Mental illness and identity in adolescents with internalizing problems: A qualitative exploration of identity-relevant narratives. Toward diversification of acute stressors and precision stress research: A stage 2 Registered Report validating a reward-salient stress task in emerging adults. Suicidal thoughts are associated with reduced source attribution of emotion. The utility of high-dosage experiments in everyday life to test theories in clinical science. Beyond a dichotomous operationalization of suicide attempts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1