Abstract
A hallmark of habitual actions is that, once they are established, they become insensitive to changes in the values of action outcomes. In this article, we review empirical research that examined effects of posttraining changes in outcome values in outcome-selective Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer (PIT) tasks. This review suggests that cue-instigated action tendencies in these tasks are not affected by weak and/or incomplete revaluation procedures (e.g., selective satiety) and substantially disrupted by a strong and complete devaluation of reinforcers. In a second part, we discuss two alternative models of a motivational control of habitual action: a default-interventionist framework and expected value of control theory. It is argued that the default-interventionist framework cannot solve the problem of an infinite regress (i.e., what controls the controller?). In contrast, expected value of control can explain control of habitual actions with local computations and feedback loops without (implicit) references to control homunculi. It is argued that insensitivity to changes in action outcomes is not an intrinsic design feature of habits but, rather, a function of the cognitive system that controls habitual action tendencies.
Highlights
Specialty section: This article was submitted to Cognitive Science, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
A hallmark of habitual actions is that, once they are established, they become insensitive to changes in the values of action outcomes
The studies reviewed above do not question that the cue-instigated action tendency was “habitual” in the sense that the behavior was insensitive to the current value of the outcome; rather, they suggest that the habitual action tendency was cognitively suppressed because the devalued outcome was in conflict with other goals or intentions
Summary
A habit is an acquired behavior that is triggered by an antecedent stimulus (Dickinson, 1985). This does not mean that the action tendency scales directly with the current value of the associate outcome, as proposed for a goal-directed process In this case, studies with a weak (but still effective) devaluation of the outcome should have observed a reduction in cue-instigated tendencies, which was not the case (e.g., Hogarth and Chase, 2011; Watson et al, 2014; De Tommaso et al, 2018). The studies reviewed above do not question that the cue-instigated action tendency was “habitual” in the sense that the behavior was insensitive to the current value of the outcome; rather, they suggest that the habitual action tendency was cognitively suppressed because the devalued outcome was in conflict with other goals or intentions According to this interpretation, an internal conflict signal is created after registration that the present state will deteriorate markedly with continued performance of the habitual action. We will describe two frameworks of how such a control system could be implemented on the cognitive level: a default-interventionist framework and EVC theory
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
