Computational Modeling of Uncertainty and Volatility Beliefs in Escape-Avoidance Learning: Comparing Individuals with and Without Suicidal Ideation

Background/Objectives: Computational studies using drift diffusion models on go/no-go escape tasks consistently show that individuals with suicidal ideation (SI) preferentially engage in active escape from negative emotional states. This study extends these findings by examining how individuals with SI update beliefs about action–outcome contingencies and uncertainty when trying to escape an aversive state. Methods: Undergraduate students with (n = 58) and without (n = 62) a lifetime history of SI made active (go) or passive (no-go) choices in response to stimuli to escape or avoid an unpleasant state in a laboratory-based negative reinforcement task. A Hierarchical Gaussian Filter (HGF) was used to estimate trial-by-trial trajectories of contingency and volatility beliefs, along with their uncertainties, prediction errors (precision-weighted), and dynamic learning rates, as well as fixed parameters at the person level. Bayesian mixed-effects models were used to examine the relationship between trial number, SI history, trial type, and all two-way interactions on HGF parameters. Results: We did not find an effect of SI history, trial type, or their interactions on perceived volatility of reward contingencies. At the trial level, however, participants with a history of SI developed progressively stronger contingency beliefs while simultaneously perceiving the environment as increasingly stable compared to those without SI experiences. Despite this rigidity, they maintained higher uncertainty during escape trials. Participants with an SI history had higher dynamic learning rates during escape trials compared to those without SI experiences. Conclusions: Individuals with an SI history showed a combination of cognitive inflexibility and hyper-reactivity to prediction errors in escape-related contexts. This combination may help explain difficulties in adapting to changing environments and in regulating responses to stress, both of which are relevant for suicide risk.