Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41843350›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2026

A novel approach-avoidance task to study decision making under outcome uncertainty.

Ziwei Cheng, Nadja R Ging-Jehli, Maisy Tarlow, Joonhwa Kim, Henry W Chase, Manan Arora, Lisa Bonar, Ricki Stiffler, Alex Grattery, Simona Graur and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Ziwei ChengDepartment of Psychology, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA. ziweicheng@berkeley.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-9247-0427
Nadja R Ging-JehliCarney Institute for Brain Science, Department of Cognitive and Psychological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Maisy TarlowCarney Institute for Brain Science, Department of Cognitive and Psychological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Joonhwa KimCarney Institute for Brain Science, Department of Cognitive and Psychological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Henry W ChaseDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Manan AroraDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Lisa BonarDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Ricki StifflerDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Alex GratteryDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Simona GraurDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Michael J FrankCarney Institute for Brain Science, Department of Cognitive and Psychological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Mary L PhillipsDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Amitai ShenhavDepartment of Psychology, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA. amitai@berkeley.edu.

Funding

The neural network of OCD, linking NHP and human studiesP50MH106435 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI Suzanne N Haber · 2015 to 2026
$28.9M
NIMH NIH HHS P50MH106435
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To behave adaptively, people need to integrate information about probabilistic outcomes and balance drives to approach positive outcomes and avoid negative outcomes. However, questions remain about how uncertainty in positive and negative outcomes influence approach-avoid decision-making dynamics. To fill this gap, we developed a novel Probabilistic Approach-Avoidance Task (PAAT) and characterized behavior in this task using sequential sampling models. In this task, participants (Study 1: blinded mixed clinical sample N = 34; Study 2: online nonpsychiatric sample N = 58) made a series of choices between pairs of options, each consisting of variable probabilities of reaching a positive outcome (monetary reward) and of reaching a negative outcome (aversive image). Participants tended to choose options that maximized the likelihood of reward and minimized the likelihood of aversive outcomes. Moreover, the weights they placed on each of these differed for choices where these likelihoods were in opposition (i.e., the riskier option was also more rewarding; incongruent trials) relative to when these were aligned (congruent trials). Computational modeling revealed that the relative influence of rewarding and aversive outcomes on choice was captured by differences in the rate of decision-relevant information accumulation. These modeling results were validated with a series of model comparisons and posterior predictive checks, demonstrating that our sequential sampling models reliably captured our behavioral data. Together, these findings improve our understanding of the influence of motivational conflict, outcome type, and levels of uncertainty on approach-avoid decision making.

Indexed as

Avoidance LearningChoice BehaviorDecision MakingRewardAdultFemaleHumansMaleUncertaintyYoung AdultBehavioral motivationComputational modelingDecision makingUncertainty

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.