Deviations from Bayes' Theorem During Belief Updating in Younger and Older Adults: Evidence From Behaviour and Neural Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Updating prior information with new information in accordance with Bayesian principles is a difficult task. Younger adult decision makers deviate from Bayes’ theorem by either overweighting prior information (i.e., using a conservatism heuristic) or overweighting new information (i.e., using a representativeness heuristic) on decision tasks without feedback. Similar to younger adults, older adults make decisions that require belief updating. Given agerelated decrements in cognitive control, older adults may be at a disadvantage compared with younger adults when updating beliefs. Prior research shows no age differences when making decisions under risk, however older adults perform worse than younger adults when making decisions under ambiguity. Currently it is unknown how older adults use heuristics when updating beliefs about risk and ambiguous information compared with younger adults. The primary aim of this dissertation was to examine age-related differences in the use of heuristics during belief updating, as well as the cognitive processes and neural correlates that underpin behaviour. In three experiments, younger and older adults completed a belief updating task with and without feedback using an urn-ball paradigm. The main results showed that both younger and older adults committed the representativeness error more than the conservatism error, with no age differences observed when updating beliefs without feedback but with younger adults updating beliefs more accurately than older adults with feedback. Further, age differences in the neural correlates that underlie belief updating showed evidence that older adults recruit additional resources in frontal regions of the brain to facilitate performance compared with younger adults. Event-related potentials showed evidence of cognitive control in response to conflicting information in both age groups, but a diminished neural response to feedback in older compared with younger adults. Additionally, while younger adults were not influenced by ambiguous information, older adults avoided committing the representativeness error only when new information was ambiguous. Last, individual differences in numeracy and cognitive reflection, but not thinking disposition, modulated belief updating performance. Together, the results show that younger and older adults can learn to update beliefs with feedback but with younger adults learning to a greater degree than older adults, especially when information is ambiguous.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".