An official website of the United States government
Individuals in positions of power are often required to make high-stakes decisions. The approach-inhibition theory of social power holds that elevated power activates approach-related tendencies, leading to decisiveness and action orientation. However, naturalistic decision-making research has often reported that increased power often has the opposite effect and causes more avoidant decision-making. To investigate the potential activation of avoidance-related tendencies in response to elevated power, this study employed an immersive scenario-based battery of least-worst decisions (the Least-Worst Uncertain Choice Inventory for Emergency Responses; LUCIFER) with members of the United States Armed Forces. In line with previous naturalistic decision-making research on the effect of power, this research found that in conditions of higher power, individuals found decisions more difficult and were more likely to make an avoidant choice. Furthermore, this effect was more pronounced in domain-specific decisions for which the individual had experience. These findings expand our understanding of when, and in what contexts, power leads to approach vs. avoidant tendencies, as well as demonstrate the benefits of bridging methodological divides that exist between “in the lab” and “in the field” when studying high-uncertainty decision-making.
more »
« less
The Effect of a 3-Minute Mindfulness Intervention, and the Mediating Role of Maximization, on Critical Incident Decision-Making
Objective In this study, we extend the impact of mindfulness to the concept of least-worst decision-making. Least-worst decisions involve high-uncertainty and require the individual to choose between a number of potentially negative courses of action. Research is increasingly exploring least-worst decisions, and real-world events (such as the COVID-19 pandemic) show the need for individuals to overcome uncertainty and commit to a least-worst course of action. From sports to business, researchers are increasingly showing that “being mindful” has a range of positive performance-related benefits. We hypothesized that mindfulness would improve least-worst decision-making because it would increase self-reflection and value identification. However, we also hypothesized that trait maximization (the tendency to attempt to choose the “best” course of action) would negatively interact with mindfulness. Methods Three hundred and ninety-eight participants were recruited using Amazon MTurk and exposed to a brief mindfulness intervention or a control intervention (listening to an audiobook). After this intervention, participants completed the Least-Worst Uncertain Choice Inventory for Emergency Responders (LUCIFER). Results As hypothesized, mindfulness increased decision-making speed and approach-tendencies. Conversely, for high-maximizers, increased mindfulness caused a slowing of the decision-making process and led to more avoidant choices. Conclusions This study shows the potential positive and negative consequences of mindfulness for least-worst decision-making, emphasizing the critical importance of individual differences when considering both the effect of mindfulness and interventions aimed at improving decision-making.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1945108
- PAR ID:
- 10318900
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Volume:
- 12
- ISSN:
- 1664-1078
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Humans can flexibly adjust how they make decisions to arbitrary goals. However, most theories in decision-making focus on predicting one specific choice type (i.e., choosing the best option). Here, we link decision-making and cognitive-control research to test a theory that accounts for flexible adjustments of choice mechanisms to different goals and demands. Our biologically inspired model specifies how different features translate into evidence for the current goal, and how evidence is mapped onto different output structures. We tested the model in an eye-tracking study in which participants were asked to choose one out of four consumer products or to appraise the entire set, each with respect to positive or negative value. The results confirmed our preregistered hypotheses that response time (RT) should decrease with the overall value of a set of options in choose-best but increase in choose-worst trials. As predicted, this interaction was absent in appraisal RT, which instead exhibited an inverted-U-shaped pattern. Furthermore, the amount of attention devoted to an option was positively related to its value in choose-best, negatively related in choose-worst trials, and unrelated when participants appraised entire sets of products. Time-resolved analyses of eye movements revealed strategic goal-dependent search processes, as attention is increasingly focused on goal-congruent options in choice but remains more uniformly distributed in appraisal. Our findings suggest that cognitive control shapes choice and search dynamics by flexibly adjusting them to current goals and demands.more » « less
-
Abstract This study tests the hypothesis that individual differences in trait maximization as well as in core personal values impact decision-making in dynamic and high-risk situations. 420 student-candidates at a Spanish police College (64.8 % male; 18 to 25 years) completed an online questionnaire that included maximization measures and core personal values. They then responded to three written vignettes that required dichotomous decisions (act vs. wait) under conditions of uncertainty. Multilevel modelling revealed that higher scores in maximization predicted a greater tendency to choose the action option later, but no differences were found in difficulty or perceived confidence. The tendency to wait was significantly higher among those who had wait-favouring core values; likewise, it was lower among those who had action-favouring core values. This study confirms the role of the trait maximization in the timeliness of decision-making, and illustrates the relationship between certain identified values, and decision making.more » « less
-
Cancer screening is a large, population-based intervention that would benefit from tools enabling individually-tailored decision making to decrease unintended consequences such as overdiagnosis. The heterogeneity of cancer screening participants advocates the need for more personalized approaches. Partially observable Markov decision processes (POMDPs) can be used to suggest optimal, individualized screening policies. However, determining an appropriate reward function can be challenging. Here, we propose the use of inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) to form rewards functions for lung and breast cancer screening POMDP models. Using data from the National Lung Screening Trial and our institution's breast screening registry, we developed two POMDP models with corresponding reward functions. Specifically, the maximum entropy (MaxEnt) IRL algorithm with an adaptive step size was used to learn rewards more efficiently; and combined with a multiplicative model to learn state-action pair rewards in the POMDP. The lung and breast cancer screening models were evaluated based on their ability to recommend appropriate screening decisions before the diagnosis of cancer. Results are comparable with experts' decisions. The lung POMDP demonstrated an improved performance in terms of recall and false positive rate in the second screening and post-screening stages. Precision (0.02-0.05) was comparable to experts' (0.02-0.06). The breast POMDP has excellent recall (0.97-1.00), matching the physicians and a satisfactory false positive rate (<0.03). The reward functions learned with the MaxEnt IRL algorithm, when combined with POMDP models in lung and breast cancer screening, demonstrate performance comparable to experts.more » « less
-
A key question in decision-making is how humans arbitrate between competing learning and memory systems to maximize reward. We address this question by probing the balance between the effects, on choice, of incremental trial-and-error learning versus episodic memories of individual events. Although a rich literature has studied incremental learning in isolation, the role of episodic memory in decision-making has only recently drawn focus, and little research disentangles their separate contributions. We hypothesized that the brain arbitrates rationally between these two systems, relying on each in circumstances to which it is most suited, as indicated by uncertainty. We tested this hypothesis by directly contrasting contributions of episodic and incremental influence to decisions, while manipulating the relative uncertainty of incremental learning using a well-established manipulation of reward volatility. Across two large, independent samples of young adults, participants traded these influences off rationally, depending more on episodic information when incremental summaries were more uncertain. These results support the proposal that the brain optimizes the balance between different forms of learning and memory according to their relative uncertainties and elucidate the circumstances under which episodic memory informs decisions.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.674694
