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. Pessimistic beliefs are at the core of both depression and anxiety. How do these beliefs form and is this process similar or different for depression and anxiety? Here, we investigate these questions in a naturalistic experimental setting, in which undergraduate participants competed against one another to be selected by their peers in a hypothetical tech internship and were asked to judge their popularity relative to other participants. Importantly, participants were asked to make these judgements before any feedback and after receiving a series of pieces of feedback about whether or not they had been selected over other specific students. This design, along with computational modelling of the formation of participants' beliefs, allowed us to establish that anxiety is associated with pessimistic beliefs that arise through negatively biased belief updating–i.e., the incorporation of negative information more readily into one's beliefs than positive information–while depression is associated with pessimistic prior beliefs–that is, beliefs that are formed before receiving explicit feedback and likely on the basis of prior experiences or pre-existing schema.

Overcoming priors anxiety

The prior can generally only be understood in the context of the likelihood

Properly constrained reference priors decay rates for efficient and robust posterior inference

On a Class of Objective Priors from Scoring Rules

Toward a principled Bayesian workflow in cognitive science.

Learning Approximately Objective Priors

Bayesian Models and Methods in Public Policy and Government Settings

Sculpting priors

The experiment is just as important as the likelihood in understanding the prior: A cautionary note on robust cognitive modelling

Priors in Bayesian Deep Learning: A Review

Practical Bayesian Inference in Neuroscience: Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Embrace the Distribution

Entropic Priors and Bayesian Model Selection

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

Conditional probability and improper priors

Posterior Probabilities: Dominance and Optimism

Wrong Priors

Robust priors for regularized regression

Comment on Article by Berger, Bernardo, and Sun

Bayesian Philosophy of Science

Bayesian reasoning and the prior in court: not legally normative but unavoidable

Prior knowledge elicitation: The past, present, and future