Advertisement

Brief Report: Reduced Optimism Bias in Self-Referential Belief Updating in High-Functioning Autism

  • Bojana KuzmanovicEmail author
  • Lionel Rigoux
  • Kai Vogeley
Brief Report

Abstract

Previous research has demonstrated irrational asymmetry in belief updating: people tend to take into account good news and neglect bad news. Contradicting formal learning principles, belief updates were on average larger after better-than-expected information than after worse-than-expected information. In the present study, typically developing subjects demonstrated this optimism bias in self-referential judgments. In contrast, adults with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder (ASD) were significantly less biased when updating self-referential beliefs (each group n = 21, matched for age, gender and IQ). These findings indicate a weaker influence of self-enhancing motives on prospective judgments in ASD. Reduced susceptibility to emotional and motivational biases in reasoning in ASD could elucidate impairments of social cognition, but may also confer important cognitive benefits.

Keywords

Autism Belief updating Optimism bias Rationality Judgment Learning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the teams of the Autism Outpatient Clinic and the Neuroimaging Lab at the University Hospital Cologne for the great work in clinical diagnosis and neuropsychological and experimental testing, especially Alexandra L. Georgescu and Kerstin Eßer. Furthermore, we thank Anneli Jefferson for valuable discussions and comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript.

Author Contributions

B. Kuzmanovic and K. Vogeley developed the study concept and the research question. B. Kuzmanovic developed the experimental design. B. Kuzmanovic and L. Rigoux performed the data analysis. B. Kuzmanovic drafted the manuscript, and K. Vogeley and L. Rigoux provided significant and extended further contributions. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the local ethics committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Cologne, Germany and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

10803_2016_2940_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15 KB)

References

  1. Bortolotti, L., & Antrobus, M. (2015). Costs and benefits of realism and optimism. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 28, 194–198. doi: 10.1097/YCO.0000000000000143.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Brewer, R., et al. (2015). The impact of autism spectrum disorder and alexithymia on judgments of moral acceptability. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124, 589–595. doi: 10.1037/abn0000076.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Chase, H. W., Kumar, P., Eickhoff, S. B., & Dombrovski, A. Y. (2015). Reinforcement learning models and their neural correlates: An activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 15, 435–459. doi: 10.3758/s13415-015-0338-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chowdhury, R., Sharot, T., Wolfe, T., Duzel, E., & Dolan, R. J. (2014). Optimistic update bias increases in older age. Psychological Medicine, 44, 2003–2012. doi: 10.1017/S0033291713002602.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Damiano, C. R., Aloi, J., Treadway, M., Bodfish, J. W., & Dichter, G. S. (2012). Adults with autism spectrum disorders exhibit decreased sensitivity to reward parameters when making effort-based decisions. Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 4, 13. doi: 10.1186/1866-1955-4-13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. De Martino, B., Harrison, N. A., Knafo, S., Bird, G., & Dolan, R. J. (2008). Explaining enhanced logical consistency during decision making in autism. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 28, 10746–10750. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2895-08.2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Martino, B., Kumaran, D. Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2006). Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science, 313, 684–687. doi: 10.1126/science.1128356.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Eil, D., & Rao, J. M. (2011). The good news-bad news effect: Asymmetric processing of objective information about yourself. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 3, 114–138. doi: 10.1257/mic.3.2.114.Google Scholar
  9. Friston, K. J., Stephan, K. E., Montague, R., & Dolan, R. J. (2014). Computational psychiatry: The brain as a phantastic organ. The Lancet Psychiatry, 1, 148–158. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(14)70275-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Garrett, N., & Sharot, T. (2014). How robust is the optimistic update bias for estimating self-risk and population base rates? PLoS One, 9, e98848. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098848.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Garrett, N., & Sharot, T. (2016). Optimistic update for positive life events? An unbiased test. Conscious Cogn, In revision.Google Scholar
  12. Garrett, N., Sharot, T., Faulkner, P., Korn, C. W., Roiser, J. P., & Dolan, R. J. (2014). Losing the rose tinted glasses: Neural substrates of unbiased belief updating in depression. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 639 doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00639.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Harris, A. J. L., Shah, P., Catmur, C., Bird, G., & Hahn, U. (2013). Autism, optimism and positive events: Evidence against a general optimistic bias. In Proceedings of the 35th annual conference of the cognitive science society, Austin, TX.Google Scholar
  14. Hautzinger, M., Bailer, M., Worall, H., & Keller, F. (2005). Beck-depressions-inventar (BDI). Bearbeitung der deutschen Ausgabe. Testhandbuch., 2., überarbeitete edn. Bern: Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG.Google Scholar
  15. Hughes, B. L., & Zaki, J. (2015). The neuroscience of motivated cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 62–64. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.12.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Huys, Q. J., Daw, N. D., & Dayan, P. (2015). Depression: A decision-theoretic analysis. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 38, 1–23. doi: 10.1146/annurev-neuro-071714-033928.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Huys, Q. J., Pizzagalli, D. A., Bogdan, R., & Dayan, P. (2013). Mapping anhedonia onto reinforcement learning: A behavioural meta-analysis. Biology of Mood & Anxiety Disorders, 3, 12 doi: 10.1186/2045-5380-3-12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2007). Frames and brains: Elicitation and control of response tendencies. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 45–46. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kessler, R. C., et al. (2007). Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of mental disorders in the World Health Organization’s World Mental Health Survey Initiative. World Psychiatry, 6, 168–176.Google Scholar
  20. Klin, A., & Jones, W. (2006). Attributing social and physical meaning to ambiguous visual displays in individuals with higher-functioning autism spectrum disorders. Brain and Cognition, 61, 40–53. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2005.12.016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Klin, A., Jones, W., Schultz, R., & Volkmar, F. (2003). The enactive mind, or from actions to cognition: Lessons from autism. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences, 358, 345–360 doi: 10.1098/rstb.2002.1202.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Korn, C. W., Prehn, K., Park, S. Q., Walter, H., & Heekeren, H. R. (2012). Positively biased processing of self-relevant social feedback. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 32, 16832–16844. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3016-12.2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Korn, C. W., Sharot, T., Walter, H., Heekeren, H. R., & Dolan, R. J. (2014). Depression is related to an absence of optimistically biased belief updating about future life events. Psychological Medicine, 44, 579–592. doi: 10.1017/S0033291713001074.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuzmanovic, B., Jefferson, A., & Vogeley, K. (2015). Self-specific optimism bias in belief updating is associated with high trait optimism. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 28, 281–293. doi: 10.1002/bdm.1849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuzmanovic, B., Jefferson, A., & Vogeley, K. (2016). The role of the neural reward circuitry in self-referential optimistic belief updates. NeuroImage, 133, 151–162. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.02.014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kuzmanovic, B., & Rigoux, L. (2016). Optimistic belief updating deviates from bayesian learning. SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2810063.
  27. Kuzmanovic, B., Schilbach, L., Lehnhardt, F.-G., Bente, G., & Vogeley, K. (2011). A matter of words: Impact of verbal and nonverbal information on impression formation in high-functioning autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 5, 604–613 doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2010.07.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leary, M. R. (2007). Motivational and emotional aspects of the self. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 317–344. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085658.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Lefebvre, G., Lebreton, M., Meyniel, F., Bourgeois-Gironde, S., & Palminteri, S. (2016). Asymmetric reinforcement learning: Computational and neural basis of positive life orientation. bioRxiv (not peer-reviewed preprint).Google Scholar
  30. Makridakis, S., & Moleskis, A. (2015). The costs and benefits of positive illusions. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 859 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00859.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Marsh, L. E., & Hamilton, A. F. (2011). Dissociation of mirroring and mentalising systems in autism. NeuroImage, 56, 1511–1519. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.02.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Marsh, L. E., Pearson, A., Ropar, D., & Hamilton, A. F. (2015). Predictive gaze during observation of irrational actions in adults with autism spectrum conditions. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45, 245–261. doi: 10.1007/s10803-014-2215-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Pizzagalli, D. A., Iosifescu, D., Hallett, L. A., Ratner, K. G., & Fava, M. (2008). Reduced hedonic capacity in major depressive disorder: Evidence from a probabilistic reward task. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43, 76–87. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2008.03.001.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Schilbach, L. (2015). Eye to eye, face to face and brain to brain: novel approaches to study the behavioral dynamics and neural mechanisms of social interactions. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 3, 130–135. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.03.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schmidt, K.-H., & Metzler, P. (1992). Wortschatztest (WST). Weinheim, Beltz Test GmbH.Google Scholar
  36. Sevgi, M., Diaconescu, A. O., Tittgemeyer, M., & Schilbach, L. (2016). Social Bayes: Using Bayesian modeling to study autistic trait-related differences in social cognition. Biological Psychiatry, 80, 112–119. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.11.025.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Shah, P., Harris, A. J. L., Bird, G., Catmur, C., & Hahn, U. (2016). A pessimistic view of optimistic belief updating. Cognitive Psychology. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2016.05.004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Sharot, T., & Garrett, N. (2016). Forming beliefs: Why valence matters. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 25–33. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.11.002.
  39. Sharot, T., & Garrett, N. (in press). Optimistic Update Bias Holds Firm: Three Tests of Robustness Following Shah et al. Consciousness and Cognition.Google Scholar
  40. Sharot, T., Korn, C. W., & Dolan, R. J. (2011). How unrealistic optimism is maintained in the face of reality. Nature Neuroscience, 14, 1475–1479. doi: 10.1038/nn.2949.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Shepperd, J. A., Klein, W. M. P., Waters, E. A., & Weinstein, N. D. (2013). Taking stock of unrealistic optimism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 395–411. doi: 10.1177/1745691613485247.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Stewart, M. E., Barnard, L., Pearson, J., Hasan, R., & O’Brien, G. (2006). Presentation of depression in autism and Asperger syndrome: A review. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 10, 103–116. doi: 10.1177/1362361306062013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tom, S. M., Fox, C. R., Trepel, C., & Poldrack, R. A. (2007). The neural basis of loss aversion in decision-making under risk. Science, 315, 515–518. doi: 10.1126/science.1134239.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Vivanti, G., et al. (2011). Intact and impaired mechanisms of action understanding in autism. Developmental Psychology, 47, 841–856. doi: 10.1037/a0023105.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. von Aster, M., Neubauer, A., & Horn, R. (Eds.). (2006). Wechsler intelligenztest für Erwachsene WIE. Deutschsprachige Bearbeitung und Adaptation des WAIS-III von David Wechsler. Frankfurt, Pearson Assessment.Google Scholar
  46. Weinstein, N. D. (1987). Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health-problems: Conclusions from a community-wide sample. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 10, 481–500.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Wheelwright, S., et al. (2006). Predicting autism spectrum quotient (AQ) from the systemizing quotient-revised (SQ-R) and empathy quotient (EQ). Brain Research, 1079, 47–56. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.01.012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Zwaigenbaum, L., Bryson, S., & Garon, N. (2013). Early identification of autism spectrum disorders. Behavioural Brain Research, 251, 133–146. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2013.04.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for Metabolism Research CologneTranslational Neurocircuitry GroupCologneGermany
  2. 2.Research Center Juelich, Institute of Neuroscience and MedicineEthics in the Neurosciences (INM-8)JuelichGermany
  3. 3.Institute for Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of Zürich and ETH ZürichZurichSwitzerland
  4. 4.Department of Psychiatry and PsychotherapyUniversity Hospital CologneCologneGermany
  5. 5.Research Center Juelich, Institute of Neuroscience and MedicineCognitive Neuroscience (INM-3)JuelichGermany

Personalised recommendations