Integrating Media Selection and Media Effects Using Decision Theory
Abstract
Abstract. Media psychology researchers seek to understand both why people choose certain media over others and how media influence cognitive, emotional, social, and psychological processes. A burgeoning body of literature has emerged in recent years describing media selection and media effects as reciprocally linked dynamic processes, but research approaches empirically investigating them as such have been sparse. In parallel, technological developments like algorithmic personalization and mobile computing have served to blur the lines between media selection and media effects, highlighting novel problems at their intersection. Herein, we propose an integrative approach for building an understanding of these processes rooted in decision theory, a formal framework describing how organisms (and nonbiological agents) select and optimize behaviors in response to their environment.
References
2012). Neuroethology of decision-making. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 22(6), 982–989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2012.07.009
(2010). How the brain integrates costs and benefits during decision making. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(50), 21767–21772. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908104107
(2007). Learning the value of information in an uncertain world. Nature Neuroscience, 10(9), 1214–1221. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1954
(2018). Redefine statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0189-z
(1960). Process of communication: An introduction to theory and practice. Harcourt School.
(2019). Interested in diversity: The role of user attitudes, algorithmic feedback loops, and policy in news personalization. Digital Journalism, 7(2), 206–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1521292
(2015). Reinforcement learning, efficient coding, and the statistics of natural tasks. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 5, 71–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.08.009
(2018). A layered framework for considering open science practices. Communication Research Reports, 35(4), 363–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2018.1513273
(2021). How social learning amplifies moral outrage expression in online social networks. Science Advances, 7(33), Article eabe5641. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abe5641
(2010). Neural mechanisms of observational learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(32), 14431–14436. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1003111107
(2019). Cognitive and neural bases of multi-attribute, multi-alternative, value-based decisions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(3), 251–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.12.003
(1996). Why biological explanation? Journal of Communication, 46(3), 4–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01485.x
(2015). Selection and transmission processes for information in the emerging media environment: Psychological motives and message characteristics. Media Psychology, 18(3), 396–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2014.941112
(2016). How formal models can illuminate mechanisms of moral judgment and decision making. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(2), 85–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415624012
(2017). Moral transgressions corrupt neural representations of value. Nature Neuroscience, 20(6), 879–885. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4557
(2011). Model-based influences on humans’ choices and striatal prediction errors. Neuron, 69(6), 1204–1215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.02.027
(2002). Reward, motivation, and reinforcement learning. Neuron, 36(2), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(02)00963-7
(2008). Decision theory, reinforcement learning, and the brain. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 8(4), 429–453. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.8.4.429
(2008). Reinforcement learning: The good, the bad and the ugly. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 18(2), 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2008.08.003
(2017). Increasing clarity where it is needed most: Articulating and evaluating theoretical contributions. Annals of the International Communication Association, 41(2), 168–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2017.1304163
(2021). An agenda for open science in communication. Journal of Communication, 71(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz052
(2013). Goals and habits in the brain. Neuron, 80(2), 312–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.09.007
(2010). Computational models as aids to better reasoning in psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(5), 329–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410386677
(2018). Computational modeling of cognition and behavior. Cambridge University Press.
(1993). Mathematical models for communication: An introduction. Journal of Communication, 43(1), 4–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01245.x
(2019). Enriching behavioral ecology with reinforcement learning methods. Behavioural Processes, 161, 94–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2018.01.008
(2014). The anatomy of choice: Dopamine and decision-making. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1655), Article 20130481. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0481
(2010). States versus rewards: Dissociable neural prediction error signals underlying model-based and model-free reinforcement learning. Neuron, 66(4), 585–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.04.016
(2020, May). An exploration account of media multitasking: The exploration-exploitation model to explain media multitasking behavior. Paper Presented at the 69th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association.
(2011). Value, pleasure and choice in the ventral prefrontal cortex. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(2), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.12.004
(2021). Anatomy of a psychological theory: Integrating construct-validation and computational-modeling methods to advance theorizing. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1745691620966794. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966794
(2019). Love is analogous to money in human brain: Coordinate-based and functional connectivity meta-analyses of social and monetary reward anticipation. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 100, 108–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.02.017
(2021). How computational modeling can force theory building in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1745691620970585. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970585
(2017). What communication scholars write about: An analysis of 80 years of research in high-impact journals. International Journal of Communication, 11, 3051–3071.
(2019). The human-machine extended organism: New roles and responsibilities of human cognition in a digital ecology. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8(1), 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2019.01.001
(2018).
(Cognitive offloading and the extended digital self . In M. KurosuEd., Human-computer interaction. Theories, methods, and human issues (pp. 257–268). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91238-7_222019). It’s a journey: From media effects to dynamic systems. Media Psychology, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2019.1604236
(2016). Computational psychiatry of ADHD: Neural gain impairments across Marrian levels of analysis. Trends in Neurosciences, 39(2), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2015.12.009
(2020). The case against economic values in the brain. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/7hgup
(2020). Marr’s tri-level framework integrates biological explanation across communication subfields. Journal of Communication, 70(3), 356–378. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqaa007
(2017). Agent-based modeling: A guide for social psychologists. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 387–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617691100
(2019). The flatland fallacy: Moving beyond low–dimensional thinking. Topics in Cognitive Science, 11(2), 433–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12404
(2017). Governance by algorithms: Reality construction by algorithmic selection on the Internet. Media, Culture & Society, 39(2), 238–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443716643157
(2007). The neural correlates of subjective value during intertemporal choice. Nature Neuroscience, 10(12), 1625–1633. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn2007
(1998). Planning and acting in partially observable stochastic domains. Artificial Intelligence, 101(1–2), 99–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(98)00023-X
(2015). The relation between reinforcement learning parameters and the influence of reinforcement history on choice behavior. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 66, 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2015.03.006
(2019). Common neural code for reward and information value. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 13061–13066. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1820145116
(2007). Decision theory: What “should” the nervous system do? Science, 318(5850), 606–610. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1142998
(2014). Attention as an effect not a cause. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(9), 457–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.05.008
(2018). Justify your alpha. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(3), 168–171. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0311-x
(2009).
(Beyond effects: Conceptualizing communication as dynamics, complex, nonlinear, and fundamental . In S. AllenEd., Rethinking communication: Keywords in communication research (pp. 109–120). Hampton Press.2007). The network structure of exploration and exploitation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(4), 667–694. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.4.667
(2009). Life in the network: The coming age of computational social science. Science (New York, NY), 323(5915), 721–723. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1167742
(2014). Neural computations underlying arbitration between model-based and model-free learning. Neuron, 81(3), 687–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.11.028
(2012). Evidence for arousal-biased competition in perceptual learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00241
(2008). A critical assessment of null hypothesis significance testing in quantitative communication research. Human Communication Research, 34(2), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00317.x
(2008). A communication researchers’ guide to null hypothesis significance testing and alternatives. Human Communication Research, 34(2), 188–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00318.x
(2012). The root of all value: A neural common currency for choice. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 22(6), 1027–1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2012.06.001
(2020). Strong effort manipulations reduce response caution: A preregistered reinvention of the ego-depletion paradigm. Psychological Science, 31(5), 531–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620904990
(2021). A computational reward learning account of social media engagement. Nature Communications, 12(1), Article 1311. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19607-x
(2009). A tutorial on partially observable Markov decision processes. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(3), 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2009.01.005
(2019). Analytic versus computational cognitive models: Agent-based modeling as a tool in cognitive sciences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(3), 299–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419834547
(1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. MIT Press.
(2011). Arousal-biased competition in perception and memory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(2), 114–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611400234
(1967). Theory testing in psychology and physics: A methodological paradox. Philosophy of Science, 34, 103–115.
(2016, June 16). Asynchronous methods for deep reinforcement learning. Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning. http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.01783
(2019). A problem in theory. Nature Human Behaviour, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0522-1
(2014). Automated media: An institutional theory perspective on algorithmic media production and consumption. Communication Theory, 24(3), 340–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12039
(2010). An approximately Bayesian delta-rule model explains the dynamics of belief updating in a changing environment. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(37), 12366–12378. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0822-10.2010
(2016). Reinforcement learning with Marr. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 11, 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.04.005
(2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583–15587. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903620106
(2014). Decision making: The neuroethological turn. Neuron, 82(5), 950–965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.04.037
(2017). The drift diffusion model as the choice rule in reinforcement learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(4), 1234–1251. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1199-y
(2007). Generalization in process theories of communication. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(3), 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450701434979
(2008). The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Computation, 20(4), 873–922. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.2008.12-06-420
(2004). A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. Psychological Review, 111(2), 333–367. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.333
(2016). Diffusion decision model: Current issues and history. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(4), 260–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.01.007
(2014). Entertainment 2.0? The role of intrinsic and extrinsic need satisfaction for the enjoyment of Facebook use. Journal of Communication, 64(3), 417–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12099
(2019). Affect and decision making: Insights and predictions from computational models. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(7), 602–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.04.005
(2018). From theories to models to predictions: A Bayesian model comparison approach. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1394581
(2002). The misunderstood limits of folk science: An illusion of explanatory depth. Cognitive Science, 26(5), 521–562. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2605_1
(2008). Choice, uncertainty and value in prefrontal and cingulate cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 11(4), 389–397. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn2066
(2019). Redefining science: The impact of complexity on theory development in social and behavioral research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(4), 672–690. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619848688
(1955). Information theory and mass communication. Journalism Quarterly, 32(2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769905503200201
(1997). A neural substrate of prediction and reward. Science, 275(5306), 1593–1599. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5306.1593
(1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423.
(2015). The complexity paradigm for studying human communication: A summary and integration of two fields. Review of Communication Research, 1, 22–65. https://doi.org/10.12840/issn.2255-4165.2015.03.01.007
(2004). How to build social science theories. SAGE Publications.
(2018). Beliefs about bad people are volatile. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(10), 750–756. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0425-1
(2020). An introduction to complex systems science and its applications [Review article]. Complexity, https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6105872
(2018). A general reinforcement learning algorithm that masters chess, shogi, and Go through self-play. Science, 362(6419), 1140–1144. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar6404
(2017). Mastering the game of Go without human knowledge. Nature, 550(7676), 354–359. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24270
(2012). Contributing to theory and knowledge in quantitative communication science. Communication Methods and Measures, 6(4), 215–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2012.732626
(2017).
(Models are stupid, and we need more of them . In R. R. VallacherS. J. ReadA. NowakEds., Computational social psychology (1st ed., pp. 311–331). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315173726-142020). How to translate a verbal theory into a formal model. Social Psychology, 51(4), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000425
(2014). Nonlinear dynamics and chaos. Taylor & Francis.
(2018). Reinforcement learning: An introduction. MIT press.
(2010). Defining media enjoyment as the satisfaction of intrinsic needs. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 758–777. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01513.x
(2019). What is optimal in optimal inference? Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 29, 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.07.008
(2019). A roadmap for computational communication research. Computational Communication Research, 1(1), 1–11.
(2021). Theory before the test: How to build high-verisimilitude explanatory theories in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1745691620970604. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970604
(2020). Formalizing verbal theories. Social Psychology, 51(5), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000428
(2015).
(Model comparison and the principle of parsimony . In J. R. BusemeyerZ. WangJ. T. TownsendA. EidelsEds., Oxford handbook of computational and mathematical psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 300–317). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199957996.013.142017). Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Statistics and Computing, 27(5), 1413–1432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11222-016-9696-4
(Vorderer, P.Hefner, D.Reinecke, L.Klimmt, C. (Eds.). (2018). Permanently online, permanently connected: living and communicating in a POPC World. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Permanently-Online-Permanently-Connected-Living-and-Communicating-in-a/Vorderer-Hefner-Reinecke-Klimmt/p/book/9781138245006
2007). An EZ-diffusion model for response time and accuracy. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194023
(2019). Bridging the gaps: Using agent-based modeling to reconcile data and theory in computational communication science. International Journal of Communication, 13, 3976–3999. https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-186794
(2006).
(Grazing or staying tuned: A stochastic dynamic model of channel changing behavior . In R. SunN. MiyakeEds., Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society & the 5th International Conference of the Cognitive Science (pp. 870–875). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.2015). Multidimensions of media multitasking and adaptive media selection. Human Communication Research, 41(1), 102–127.
(2011). Motivational processing and choice behavior during television viewing: An integrative dynamic approach. Journal of Communication, 61(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01527.x
(1992). Q-learning. Machine Learning, 8(3), 279–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992698
(2017). Should social science be more solution-oriented? Nature Human Behaviour, 1(1), Article 0015. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0015
(2009).
(The neurophysiological perspective in mass communication research . In M. BeattyJ. McCroskeyK. FloydEds., Biological dimensions of communication: Perspectives, methods, and research (pp. 43–73). Hampton Press.2009). Theorizing flow and media enjoyment as cognitive synchronization of attentional and reward networks. Communication Theory, 19(4), 397–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2009.01352.x
(2015). Cognitive effort: A neuroeconomic approach. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 15(2), 395–415. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-015-0334-y
(2016). Dopamine does double duty in motivating cognitive effort. Neuron, 89(4), 695–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.12.029
(