Advice-taking as a bridge between decision neuroscience and mental capacity

Elisa van der Plas; Anthony S. David; Stephen M. Fleming

doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.101504

Advice-taking as a bridge between decision neuroscience and mental capacity

Elisa van der Plas, Anthony S. David, Stephen M. Fleming

NIHR Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre (BRC)

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

11 Citations (Scopus)

189 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

A person's capacity to process advice is an important aspect of decision making in the real world. For example, in decisions about treatment, the way patients respond to the advice of family, friends and medical professionals may be used (intentionally or otherwise) as a marker of the “use or weigh” requirement of decision-making capacity. Here we explore neuroscientific research on decision-making to identify features of advice-taking that help conceptualize this requirement. We focus on studies of the neural and computational basis of decision-making in laboratory settings. These studies originally investigated simple perceptual decisions about ambiguous stimuli, but have more recently been extended to more complex “value-based” decisions involving the comparison of subjective preferences. Value-based decisions are a useful model system for capacity-related decision-making as they do not have an objectively ‘correct’ answer and are instead based on subjective preferences. In this context, advice-taking can be seen as a process in which new evidence for one or other option is integrated, leading to altered behaviour or choices. We use this framework to distinguish between different types of advice-taking: private compliance consists of updating one's privately held beliefs based on new evidence, whereas in the case of public compliance, people change their behaviour at a surface level without shifting their privately-held beliefs. Importantly, both types of advice-taking may lead to similar outcomes but rely on different decision processes. We suggest that understanding how multiple mechanisms drive advice-taking holds promise for targeting decision-making support and improving our understanding of the use and weigh requirement in cases of contested capacity.

Original language	English
Article number	101504
Journal	International Journal of Law and Psychiatry
Volume	67
Early online date	26 Nov 2019
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.101504
Publication status	Published - 1 Dec 2019

Keywords

Advice-taking
Capacity
Decision neuroscience
Decision-making capacity

Access to Document

10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.101504Licence: CC BY

Advice-takingasabridge_VAN DER PLAS_Accepted10September2019_GOLD VoR (CC BY)Final published version, 949 KBLicence: CC BY

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160252719301190

Cite this

@article{f88ae0627c8e4e0ba6024c008477819f,

title = "Advice-taking as a bridge between decision neuroscience and mental capacity",

abstract = "A person's capacity to process advice is an important aspect of decision making in the real world. For example, in decisions about treatment, the way patients respond to the advice of family, friends and medical professionals may be used (intentionally or otherwise) as a marker of the “use or weigh” requirement of decision-making capacity. Here we explore neuroscientific research on decision-making to identify features of advice-taking that help conceptualize this requirement. We focus on studies of the neural and computational basis of decision-making in laboratory settings. These studies originally investigated simple perceptual decisions about ambiguous stimuli, but have more recently been extended to more complex “value-based” decisions involving the comparison of subjective preferences. Value-based decisions are a useful model system for capacity-related decision-making as they do not have an objectively {\textquoteleft}correct{\textquoteright} answer and are instead based on subjective preferences. In this context, advice-taking can be seen as a process in which new evidence for one or other option is integrated, leading to altered behaviour or choices. We use this framework to distinguish between different types of advice-taking: private compliance consists of updating one's privately held beliefs based on new evidence, whereas in the case of public compliance, people change their behaviour at a surface level without shifting their privately-held beliefs. Importantly, both types of advice-taking may lead to similar outcomes but rely on different decision processes. We suggest that understanding how multiple mechanisms drive advice-taking holds promise for targeting decision-making support and improving our understanding of the use and weigh requirement in cases of contested capacity.",

keywords = "Advice-taking, Capacity, Decision neuroscience, Decision-making capacity",

author = "{van der Plas}, Elisa and David, {Anthony S.} and Fleming, {Stephen M.}",

year = "2019",

month = dec,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.101504",

language = "English",

volume = "67",

journal = "International Journal of Law and Psychiatry",

issn = "0160-2527",

publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Advice-taking as a bridge between decision neuroscience and mental capacity

AU - van der Plas, Elisa

AU - David, Anthony S.

AU - Fleming, Stephen M.

PY - 2019/12/1

Y1 - 2019/12/1

N2 - A person's capacity to process advice is an important aspect of decision making in the real world. For example, in decisions about treatment, the way patients respond to the advice of family, friends and medical professionals may be used (intentionally or otherwise) as a marker of the “use or weigh” requirement of decision-making capacity. Here we explore neuroscientific research on decision-making to identify features of advice-taking that help conceptualize this requirement. We focus on studies of the neural and computational basis of decision-making in laboratory settings. These studies originally investigated simple perceptual decisions about ambiguous stimuli, but have more recently been extended to more complex “value-based” decisions involving the comparison of subjective preferences. Value-based decisions are a useful model system for capacity-related decision-making as they do not have an objectively ‘correct’ answer and are instead based on subjective preferences. In this context, advice-taking can be seen as a process in which new evidence for one or other option is integrated, leading to altered behaviour or choices. We use this framework to distinguish between different types of advice-taking: private compliance consists of updating one's privately held beliefs based on new evidence, whereas in the case of public compliance, people change their behaviour at a surface level without shifting their privately-held beliefs. Importantly, both types of advice-taking may lead to similar outcomes but rely on different decision processes. We suggest that understanding how multiple mechanisms drive advice-taking holds promise for targeting decision-making support and improving our understanding of the use and weigh requirement in cases of contested capacity.

AB - A person's capacity to process advice is an important aspect of decision making in the real world. For example, in decisions about treatment, the way patients respond to the advice of family, friends and medical professionals may be used (intentionally or otherwise) as a marker of the “use or weigh” requirement of decision-making capacity. Here we explore neuroscientific research on decision-making to identify features of advice-taking that help conceptualize this requirement. We focus on studies of the neural and computational basis of decision-making in laboratory settings. These studies originally investigated simple perceptual decisions about ambiguous stimuli, but have more recently been extended to more complex “value-based” decisions involving the comparison of subjective preferences. Value-based decisions are a useful model system for capacity-related decision-making as they do not have an objectively ‘correct’ answer and are instead based on subjective preferences. In this context, advice-taking can be seen as a process in which new evidence for one or other option is integrated, leading to altered behaviour or choices. We use this framework to distinguish between different types of advice-taking: private compliance consists of updating one's privately held beliefs based on new evidence, whereas in the case of public compliance, people change their behaviour at a surface level without shifting their privately-held beliefs. Importantly, both types of advice-taking may lead to similar outcomes but rely on different decision processes. We suggest that understanding how multiple mechanisms drive advice-taking holds promise for targeting decision-making support and improving our understanding of the use and weigh requirement in cases of contested capacity.

KW - Advice-taking

KW - Capacity

KW - Decision neuroscience

KW - Decision-making capacity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85075513556&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.101504

DO - 10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.101504

M3 - Review article

SN - 0160-2527

VL - 67

JO - International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

JF - International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

M1 - 101504

ER -

Advice-taking as a bridge between decision neuroscience and mental capacity

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this