Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35969600›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2022

Biased belief priors versus biased belief updating: Differential correlates of depression and anxiety.

Christopher Gagne, Sharon Agai, Christian Ramiro, Peter Dayan, Sonia Bishop

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. How mood shapes belief updating bias in depression.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Christopher GagneDepartment of Psychology, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-2241-5285
Sharon AgaiDepartment of Psychology, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States of America.
Christian RamiroDepartment of Psychology, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-2909-6563
Peter DayanMax Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3476-1839
Sonia BishopDepartment of Psychology, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7833-3030
University of California, Berkeley · USMax Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics · DE

Funding

Computationally modeling individual differences in probabilistic decision-making across positive and negative valence domainsR01MH124108 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI BISHOP, SONIA JANE · 2020 to 2024
$2.8M
Elucidating the relationship between decision-making under second-order uncertainty and dimensions of negative affect using computational modelingR01MH122558 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI BISHOP, SONIA JANE · 2021 to 2025
$2.5M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH122558NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH124108
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Individuals prone to anxiety and depression often report beliefs and make judgements about themselves that are more negative than those reported by others. We use computational modeling of a richly naturalistic task to disentangle the role of negative priors versus negatively biased belief updating and to investigate their association with different dimensions of Internalizing psychopathology. Undergraduate participants first provided profiles for a hypothetical tech internship. They then viewed pairs of other profiles and selected the individual they would prefer to work alongside out of each pair. In a subsequent phase of the experiment, participants made judgments about their relative popularity as hypothetical internship partners both before any feedback and after each of 20 items of feedback revealing whether or not they had been selected as the preferred teammate from a given pairing. Scores on latent factors of general negative affect, anxiety-specific affect and depression-specific affect were estimated using participants' self-report scores on standardized measures of anxiety and depression together with factor loadings from a bifactor analysis conducted previously. Higher scores on the depression-specific factor were linked to more negative prior beliefs but were not associated with differences in belief updating. In contrast, higher scores on the anxiety-specific factor were associated with a negative bias in belief updating but no difference in prior beliefs. These findings indicate that, to at least some extent, distinct processes may impact the formation of belief priors and in-the-moment belief updating and that these processes may be differentially disrupted in depression and anxiety. Future directions for enquiry include examination of the possibility that prior beliefs biases in depression might reflect generalization from prior experiences or global schema whereas belief updating biases in anxiety might be more situationally specific.

Indexed as

AnxietyDepressionBiasHumansJudgment

Identifiers

PMID35969600
PMCPMC9377597
OpenAlexW4291801089

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.