Anxiety, Depression, and Decision Making: A Computational Perspective
Abstract
In everyday life, the outcomes of our actions are rarely certain. Further, we often lack the information needed to precisely estimate the probability and value of potential outcomes as well as how much effort will be required by the courses of action under consideration. Under such conditions of uncertainty, individual differences in the estimation and weighting of these variables, and in reliance on model-free versus model-based decision making, have the potential to strongly influence our behavior. Both anxiety and depression are associated with difficulties in decision making. Further, anxiety is linked to increased engagement in threat-avoidance behaviors and depression is linked to reduced engagement in reward-seeking behaviors. The precise deficits, or biases, in decision making associated with these common forms of psychopathology remain to be fully specified. In this article, we review evidence for which of the computations supporting decision making are altered in anxiety and depression and consider the potential consequences for action selection. In addition, we provide a schematic framework that integrates the findings reviewed and will hopefully be of value to future studies.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The literature suggests alterations in the distinct reinforcement learning systems that underlie model-free and model-based decision-making processes in OCD, MDD, and schizophrenia.
“The literature suggests alterations in the distinct reinforcement learning systems that underlie model-free and model-based decision-making processes in OCD, MDD, and schizophrenia. 59,63,69–74”
From Investigating disorder-specific and transdiagnostic alterations in model-based and model-free decision-making (2024) · cites this paper as [69]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 90 · Cited by 240
- Authors
- Bishop, S. J., & Gagne, C.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA;
- ORCID
- Bishop, Sonia J.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Neuroscience
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2018-07-08
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 371-388
- ISSN
- 0147-006X (ISSN-L)
- 1545-4126
- OpenAlex
- W2800201914
- Cited by
- 240
- References
- 90
- Citations by year
- 2026: 27 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 6
- FWCI
- 1.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annual Review of Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- University College London
- University of Oxford
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Keywords
- anxiety, depression, decision-making, uncertainty, threat avoidance, reward seeking, individual differences, computational psychiatry, action selection
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Anxiety, Computer Simulation, Decision Making, Depression, Humans, Reward
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review