Explaining Valence Asymmetries in Value Learning: A Reinforcement Learning Account

To understand how acquired value impacts how we perceive and process stimuli, psychologists have developed the Value Learning Task (VLT; e.g., Raymond & O’Brien, 2009). The task consists of a series of trials in which participants attempt to maximize accumulated winnings as they make choices from a pair of presented images associated with probabilistic win, loss, or no-change outcomes. Despite the task having a symmetric outcome structure for win and loss pairs, people learn win associations better than loss associations (Lin, Cabrera-Haro, & Reuter-Lorenz, 2020). This asymmetry could lead to differences when the stimuli are probed in subsequent tasks, compromising inferences about how acquired value affects downstream processing. We investigate the nature of the asymmetry using a standard error-driven reinforcement learning model with a softmax choice rule. Despite having no special role for valence, the model yields the asymmetry observed in human behavior, whether the model parameters are set to maximize empirical fit, or task payoff. The asymmetry arises from an interaction between a neutral initial value estimate and a choice policy that exploits while exploring, leading to more poorly discriminated value estimates for loss stimuli. We also show how differences in estimated individual learning rates help to explain individual differences in the observed win-loss asymmetries, and how the final value estimates produced by the model provide a simple account of a post-learning explicit value categorization task.