Reward Recognition in NCLT Practice

  • Theodore Wasserman
  • Lori Drucker Wasserman


Decisions represent choices between two or more options. NCLT uses a sequential sampling model for multiattribute binary choice options, called multiattribute attention switching (MAAS) model as the basis of its understanding of reward valuation. When a person is confronted by making a choice between two or more stimuli, this model assumes a separate sampling process for each attribute of each of the available choices. Decisions are not isolated instances. Their effects compound, one upon the other. These compounded choices not only build upon each other; they act interdependently with other contextually relevant decisions resulting in a complex web of interconnected patterns of actions and emotional responses. These networks of decisions are developed to take us to various outcomes. These outcomes include patterns of behavior and patterns of emotional responses. These decision-making processes may reflect options between two solely independent neutral stimuli or reflect choices made between stimuli that have produced visceral responses to their appearance. Some decisions are practiced so much that they become automatic, we do them without having to think about them. This is a critical point. Decisions require cognitive effort and the goal of most human thinking is to preserve limited cognitive effort capacity for critical and novel situations.


Reward recognition Cue competition Blocking Multiattribute attention switching Psychotherapy 


  1. Bechara, A., Damasio, H., & Demasio, A. (2000). Emotion, decision making and the orbitofrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 10(3), 295–307. doi: 10.1093/cercor/10.3.295.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Beesley, T., Nguyen, K., Pearson, D., & Le Pelley, M. (2015). Uncertainty and predictiveness determine attention to cues during human associative learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 2175–2199. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1009919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berns, G., Lainson, D., & Lowenstein, G. (2007). Intertemporal choice – Toward an integrative framework. Trends in Cognitive Neuroscience, 11(11), 482–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bettman, J., Johnson, E., & Payne, J. (1990). A componential analysis of cognitive effort in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45(1), 111–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boddez, Y., Haesen, K., Baeyens, F., & Beckers, T. (2014). Selectivity in associative learning: A cognitive stage framework for blocking and cue competition phenomena. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1305. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01305. Retrieved from
  6. Dialectical behavior therapy. (2016). Retrieved from National Alliance on Mental Illness:
  7. Diederich, A., & Oswald, P. (2014). Sequential sampling model for multiattribute choice alternatives with random attention time and processing order. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 697. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00697.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Hare, T., Camerer, C., & Rangel, A. (2009). Self-control in decision-making involves modulation of the vmPFC valuation system. Science, 324(5927), 646–648. doi: 10.1126/science.1168450.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hershenberg, R., Drabick, D., & Vivian, D. (2012). An opportunity to bridge the gap between clinical research and clinical practice: Implications for clinical training. Psychotherapy (Chicago, Ill.), 49(2), 123–134. doi: 10.1037/a0027648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jack, R., Garrod, O., Yu, H., Caldara, R., & Schyns, P. (2012). Facial expressions of emotion are not culturally universal. PNAS, 109(19), 7241–7244. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1200155109.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Kruschke, J. (2001). Cue competition in function learning: Blocking and highlighting. Retrieved from University of Indiana:
  12. McClure, S., Laibson, D., Lowenstein, G., & Cohen, J. (2004). Separate neural systems value immediate and delayed monetary rewards. Science, 306(5695), 503–507. doi: 10.1126/science.1100907.
  13. O’Doherty, J. (2004). Reward representations and reward-related learning in the human. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 14, 768–776. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2004.10.016.Google Scholar
  14. Papez, J. (1937). A proposed mechanism of emotion. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 38, 725–743. doi: 10.1001/archneurpsyc.1937.0226022006900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pichta, M. V., Wolf, R., Lesch, K., Brummer, D., Andreas, C., & Grom, G. (2009). Neural hyporesponsiveness and hyperresponsiveness during immediate and delayed reward processing in adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 65(1), 7–14. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.07.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schultz, W. (2015). Neuronal reward and decision signals: From theories to data. Physiological Reviews, 95(3), 853–951. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00023.2014.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Wansink, B., & Sobol, J. (2007). Mindless eating the 200 daily food decisions we overlook. Environment and Behavior, 39(1), 106–123. doi: 10.1177/0013916506295573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wasserman, T., & Wasserman, L. (2015). The misnomer of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 4(2), 116–122. doi: 10.1080/21622965.2015.1005487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wasserman, T., & Wasserman, L. (2016). Depathologizing psychopathology. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wittman, M., & Paulus, M. (2008). Decision making, impulsivity and time perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(1), 7–12. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2007.10.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Theodore Wasserman
    • 1
  • Lori Drucker Wasserman
    • 1
  1. 1.Wasserman and Drucker PABoca RatonUSA

Personalised recommendations