More Like this

1. Gaze Amplifies Value in Decision Making

   https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618810521  

   Smith, Stephanie M.; Krajbich, Ian (January 2019, Psychological Science)

   null (Ed.)

   When making decisions, people tend to choose the option they have looked at more. An unanswered question is how attention influences the choice process: whether it amplifies the subjective value of the looked-at option or instead adds a constant, value-independent bias. To address this, we examined choice data from six eye-tracking studies ( Ns = 39, 44, 44, 36, 20, and 45, respectively) to characterize the interaction between value and gaze in the choice process. We found that the summed values of the options influenced response times in every data set and the gaze-choice correlation in most data sets, in line with an amplifying role of attention in the choice process. Our results suggest that this amplifying effect is more pronounced in tasks using large sets of familiar stimuli, compared with tasks using small sets of learned stimuli. 

   more » « less
2. Uncovering the computational mechanisms underlying many-alternative choice

   https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.57012  

   Thomas, Armin W; Molter, Felix; Krajbich, Ian (April 2021, eLife)

   null (Ed.)

   In our everyday lives, we often have to choose between many different options. When deciding what to order off a menu, for example, or what type of soda to buy in the supermarket, we have a range of possibilities to consider. So how do we decide what to go for? Researchers believe we make such choices by assigning a subjective value to each of the available options. But we can do this in several different ways. We could look at every option in turn, and then choose the best one once we have considered them all. This is a so-called ‘rational’ decision-making approach. But we could also consider each of the options one at a time and stop as soon as we find one that is good enough. This strategy is known as ‘satisficing’. In both approaches, we use our eyes to gather information about the items available. Most scientists have assumed that merely looking at an item – such as a particular brand of soda – does not affect how we feel about that item. But studies in which animals or people choose between much smaller sets of objects – usually up to four – suggest otherwise. The results from these studies indicate that looking at an item makes that item more attractive to the observer, thereby increasing its subjective value. Thomas et al. now show that gaze also plays an active role in the decision-making process when people are spoilt for choice. Healthy volunteers looked at pictures of up to 36 snack foods on a screen and were asked to select the one they would most like to eat. The researchers then recorded the volunteers’ choices and response times, and used eye-tracking technology to follow the direction of their gaze. They then tested which of the various decision-making strategies could best account for all the behaviour. The results showed that the volunteers’ behaviour was best explained by computer models that assumed that looking at an item increases its subjective value. Moreover, the results confirmed that we do not examine all items and then choose the best one. But neither do we use a purely satisficing approach: the volunteers chose the last item they had looked at less than half the time. Instead, we make decisions by comparing individual items against one another, going back and forth between them. The longer we look at an item, the more attractive it becomes, and the more likely we are to choose it. 

   more » « less
3. Attribute-based choice

   https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315658353-16  

   Goh, F.; Stevens, J. R. (January 2021, Routledge handbook of bounded rationality)

   Viale, R. (Ed.)

   Alternative-based approaches to decision making generate overall values for each option in a choice set by processing information within options before comparing options to arrive at a decision. By contrast, attribute-based approaches compare attributes (such as monetary cost and time delay to receipt of a reward) across options and use these attribute comparisons to make a decision. Because they compare attributes, they may not use all available information to make a choice, which categorizes many of them as heuristics. Attribute-based models can better predict choice compared to alternative-based models in some situations (e.g., when there are many options in the choice set, when calculating an overall value for an option is too cognitively taxing). Process data comparing alternative-based and attribute-based processing obtained from eye-tracking and mouse-tracking technology support these findings. Data on attribute-based models thus align with the notion of bounded rationality that people make use of heuristics to make good decisions when under time pressure, informational constraints, and computational constraints. Further study of attribute-based models and processing would enhance our understanding of how individuals process information and make decisions. 

   more » « less
4. The Effect of a 3-Minute Mindfulness Intervention, and the Mediating Role of Maximization, on Critical Incident Decision-Making

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.674694  

   Shortland, Neil D.; McGarry, Presley; Thompson, Lisa; Stevens, Catherine; Alison, Laurence J. (May 2021, Frontiers in Psychology)

   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
5. Formalizing the fundamental Faustian bargain: Inefficacious decision-makers sacrifice their freedom of choice to coercive leaders for economic security

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275265  

   DeCaro, Daniel A.; DeCaro, Marci S.; Hotaling, Jared M.; Appel, Rachel (September 2022, PLOS ONE)

   Fernandes, Thiago P. (Ed.)

   Individuals typically prefer the freedom to make their own decisions. Yet, people often trade their own decision control (procedural utility) to gain economic security (outcome utility). Decision science has not reconciled these observations. We examined how decision-makers’ efficacy and security perceptions influence when, why, and how individuals exchange procedural and outcome utility. Undergraduate adults ( N = 77; M age = 19.45 years; 73% female; 62% Caucasian, 13% African American) were recruited from the psychology participant pool at a midwestern U.S. metropolitan university. Participants made financial decisions in easy and hard versions of a paid card task resembling a standard gambling task, with a learning component. During half the trials, they made decisions with a No-Choice Manager who controlled their decisions, versus a Choice Manager who granted decision control. The hard task was designed to be too difficult for most participants, undermining their efficacy and security, and ensuring financial losses. The No-Choice Manager was designed to perform moderately well, ensuring financial gains. Participants felt greater outcome satisfaction (utility) for financial gains earned via Choice, but not losses. Participants (85%) preferred the Choice manager in the easy task but preferred the No-Choice Manager (56%) in the hard task. This change in preference for choice corresponded with self-efficacy and was mediated by perceived security. We used Decision Field Theory to develop potential cognitive models of these decisions. Preferences were best described by a model that assumed decision-makers initially prefer Choice, but update their preference based on loss-dependent attentional focus. When they earned losses (hard task), decision-makers focused more on economic payoffs (financial security), causing them to deemphasize procedural utility. Losses competed for attention, pulling attention toward economic survivability and away from the inherent value of choice. Decision-makers are more likely to sacrifice freedom of choice to leaders they perceive as efficacious to alleviate perceived threats to economic security. 

   more » « less