:: Volume 7, Issue 4 (Autumn 2019) ::
Shefaye Khatam 2019, 7(4): 61-70 Back to browse issues page
Changing in the Reaction Time Causes the Confidence Matching in Group Decision Making
Jamal Esmaily, Reza Ebrahimpour *, Sajjad Zabbah
Department of Computer Engineering, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran , rebrahimpour@srttu.edu
Abstract:   (922 Views)
Introduction: Others’ decision could constantly affect our decisions. There are numerous studies which revealed this effect properly. The social influence could affect most of the decision parameters, especially the confidence.  Recently, an interesting study showed that participants tend to match their confidence to each other while they preserve their decision accuracy in a group decision making task. Since the decision accuracy is not able to explain this effect, the main question is which decision parameter is changing in a way which could be resulted in changing in the confidence and ultimately the confidence matching. Materials and Methods: In order to answer this question, ten subjects attended into a Psycho-Physic study with two separate sessions; Isolated and Social. In both situations, the participants were required to determine the direction of the presented motion dots and report their decision and confidence simultaneously. In the social situation, subjects were paired with four computer-generated partners, which had been created based on the data from the isolated session. The joint decisions were determined by the decision of either partner which had higher confidence. In this session, confidence and decision of the partner were represented to the participant. Results: The results indicated the subjects not only try to match their confidence to their partners, but also reported higher confidence in comparison with the isolated situation. We observed although the confidence matching did not affect the decision accuracy, however, the reaction time varied significantly in both sessions. Conclusion: This study reveals the role of reaction time in changing the confidence and consequently the confidence matching. This study once again emphasis on the reverse correlation of the reaction time and confidence even in a group decision making task.
Keywords: Reaction Time, Decision Making, Motion
Full-Text [PDF 816 kb]   (220 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research --- Open Access, CC-BY-NC | Subject: Basic research in Neuroscience
1. Hanks TD, Summerfield C. Perceptual decision making in rodents, monkeys, and humans. Neuron. 2017; 93(1): 15-31. [DOI:10.1016/j.neuron.2016.12.003]
2. Gold JI, Shadlen MN. The neural basis of decision making. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2007; 30(1): 535-74. [DOI:10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.113038]
3. Britten KH, Shadlen MN, Newsome WT, Movshon JA. The analysis of visual motion: a comparison of neuronal and psychophysical performance. J Neurosci. 1992; 12(12): 4745-65. [DOI:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.12-12-04745.1992]
4. Shadlen MN, Newsome WT. Neural basis of a perceptual decision in the parietal cortex (area lip) of the rhesus monkey. J Neurophysiol. 2001; 86(4): 1916-36. [DOI:10.1152/jn.2001.86.4.1916]
5. Roitman JD, Shadlen MN. Response of neurons in the lateral intraparietal area during a combined visual discrimination reaction time task. J Neurosci. 2002; 22(21): 9475-89. [DOI:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-21-09475.2002]
6. van den Berg R, Zylberberg A, Kiani R, Shadlen MN, Wolpert DM. Confidence is the bridge between multi-stage decisions. Curr Biol. 2016; 26(23): 3157-68. [DOI:10.1016/j.cub.2016.10.021]
7. Churchland AK, Kiani R, Shadlen MN. Decision-making with multiple alternatives. Nat Neurosci. 2008; 11(6): 693-702. [DOI:10.1038/nn.2123]
8. Kiani R, Churchland AK, Shadlen MN. Integration of direction cues is invariant to the temporal gap between them. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2013; 33(42): 16483-9. [DOI:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2094-13.2013]
9. Zabbah S. The role of the primary information on importance of the last information in decision making. Shefaye Khatam. 2016; 4(4): 26-34. [DOI:10.18869/acadpub.shefa.4.4.26]
10. Olianezhad F. The influence of past decision information on decision making in the present. Shefaye Khatam. 2016; 4(3): 1-8. [DOI:10.18869/acadpub.shefa.4.3.1]
11. Purcell BA, Kiani R. Neural mechanisms of post-error adjustments of decision policy in parietal cortex. Neuron. 2016; 89(3): 658-71. [DOI:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.12.027]
12. Mojzisch A, Krug K. Cells, circuits, and choices: social influences on perceptual decision making. C Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2008; 8(4): 498-508. [DOI:10.3758/CABN.8.4.498]
13. Ruff CC, Fehr E. The neurobiology of rewards and values in social decision making. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2014; 15(8): 549-62. [DOI:10.1038/nrn3776]
14. Asch SE. Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs. 1956; 70(9): 1-70. [DOI:10.1037/h0093718]
15. Bang D, Aitchison L, Moran R, Herce Castanon S, Rafiee B, Mahmoodi A, et al. Confidence matching in group decision-making. Nature Human Behaviour. 2017; 1(6): 1-17. [DOI:10.1038/s41562-017-0117]
16. Germar M, Schlemmer A, Krug K, Voss A, Mojzisch A. Social influence and perceptual decision making. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2014; 40(2): 217-31. [DOI:10.1177/0146167213508985]
17. Kelvin P, Deschamps J-C. Social influence and social change. Serge Moscovici, Academic Press, (European Monographs in Social Psychology), London, 1976. European Journal of Social Psychology. 1979; 9(4): 441-6. [DOI:10.1002/ejsp.2420090410]
18. Berns GS, Chappelow J, Zink CF, Pagnoni G, Martin-Skurski ME, Richards J. Neurobiological Correlates of Social Conformity and Independence During Mental Rotation. Biol Psychiatry. 2005; 58(3): 245-53. [DOI:10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.04.012]
19. Ratcliff R, McKoon G. The diffusion decision model: theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Comput. 2008; 20(4): 873-922. [DOI:10.1162/neco.2008.12-06-420]
20. Chen F, Krajbich I. Biased sequential sampling underlies the effects of time pressure and delay in social decision making. Nature Communications. 2018; 9(1): 35-7. [DOI:10.1038/s41467-018-05994-9]
21. Kiani R, Shadlen MN. Representation of confidence associated with a decision by neurons in the parietal cortex. Science. 2009; 324(5928): 759-64. [DOI:10.1126/science.1169405]
22. Kiani R, Corthell L, Shadlen MN. Choice certainty is informed by both evidence and decision time. Neuron. 2014; 84(6): 1329-42. [DOI:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.12.015]
23. Joo SJ, Katz LN, Huk AC. Decision-related perturbations of decision-irrelevant eye movements. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016; 113(7): 1925-30. [DOI:10.1073/pnas.1520309113]
24. O'Connell RG, Shadlen MN, Wong-Lin K, Kelly SP. Bridging neural and computational viewpoints on perceptual decision-making. Trends Neurosci. 2018; 41(11): 838-52. [DOI:10.1016/j.tins.2018.06.005]
25. Wang X-J. Probabilistic decision making by slow reverberation in cortical circuits. Neuron. 2002; 36(5): 955-68. [DOI:10.1016/S0896-6273(02)01092-9]
26. Wong KF. A recurrent network mechanism of time integration in perceptual decisions. Journal of Neuroscience. 2006; 26(4): 1314-28. [DOI:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3733-05.2006]
27. Voss A, Rothermund K, Brandtsta J. Interpreting ambiguous stimuli : Separating perceptual and judgmental biases. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2008; 44(4): 1048-56. [DOI:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.10.009]

XML   Persian Abstract   Print

Volume 7, Issue 4 (Autumn 2019) Back to browse issues page