Abstract
To examine the behavioural and neural interactions between objective and subjective performance during competitive decision-making, participants completed a Matching Pennies game where win-rates were fixed within three conditions (win > lose, win = lose, win < lose) and outcomes were predicted at each trial. Using random behaviour as the hallmark of optimal performance, we observed item (heads), contingency (win-stay, lose-shift) and combinatorial (HH, HT, TH, TT) biases across all conditions. Higher-quality behaviour represented by a reduction in combinatorial bias was observed during high win-rate exposure. In contrast, over-optimism biases were observed only in conditions where win rates were equal to, or less than, loss rates. At a group level, a neural measure of outcome evaluation (feedback-related negativity; FRN) indexed the binary distinction between positive and negative outcome. At an individual level, increased belief in successful performance accentuated FRN amplitude differences between wins and losses. Taken together, the data suggest that objective experiences of, or, subjective beliefs in, the predominance of positive outcomes are mutual attempts to self-regulate performance during competition. In this way, increased exposure to positive outcomes (real or imagined) help to weight the output of the more diligent and analytic System 2, relative to the impulsive and intuitive System 1.
Footnotes
Address : Department Of Psychology, P-217 Biological Sciences Building University of Alberta, Edmonton AB, T6G 2E9, Canada, E-mail : bjdyson{at}ualberta.ca
1 Individual duplet, triplet and quartet responses had different expected values: 25% for duplets (4 possible responses), 12.50% for triplets (8 possible responses), and, 6.25% for quartets (16 possible responses). This resulted in a natural inflation of the average, absolute deviation from randomness for smaller response types. For example, if an individual simply responded heads for all trials, the average, absolute value was .375 for duplets, .219 for triplets, and, .117 for quartets. To avoid the confound of naturally smaller estimates of deviation for larger response groups, the raw score for duplets was multiplied by.5834 and the raw score for quartets was divided by .5834. Thus, in our extreme hypothetical example where an individual consistently responses heads, this resulted in average, absolute values of .219 for duplets, .219 for triplets, and, .219 for quartets.
2 4 participants could not be included in the analysis due to at least one missing cell. 3 further participants were omitted from analysis if either the ratio of expected win-actual win / expected loss-actual win, or, expected win-actual loss / expected loss-actual loss exceeded 10:1.
