Individual differences in adaptive choice strategies

Abstract Individual differences in compensatory and non-compensatory choice processes remain an unresolved issue for decision process researchers. This study investigates the stability and nature of individual differences in choice processes when individuals adapt to changes in the structure of the choice environment, namely the correlation among the choice attributes. By means of process tracing techniques, between-subjects differences in choice processing (option-based or attribute based) were found to be stable across different tasks. Individuals with higher openness to experience and ability to solve reasoning tasks were found to be more adaptive, that is to switch more promptly their choice process in adaptive ways, by using more option-based search strategies when attributes were negatively related. These results suggest that insight into individual differences in choice processes can be gained when attention is given to the structure of the choice task and to how decision makers adapt to it in the course of the choice task.

[1]  Roger T. Davis,et al.  Basic Cognitive Ability Measures as Predictors of Consumer Information Processing Strategies , 1984 .

[2]  R. Rosenthal,et al.  Contrast Analysis: Focused Comparisons in the Analysis of Variance , 1985 .

[3]  G Gigerenzer,et al.  Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. , 1996, Psychological review.

[4]  W. Wayne Talarzyk,et al.  Electronic Information Systems for Consumers: An Evaluation of Computer-Assisted Formats in Multiple Decision Environments , 1993 .

[5]  S. Shiloh,et al.  Individual differences in compensatory decision-making style and need for closure as correlates of subjective decision complexity and difficulty , 2001 .

[6]  R. McCrae.  Emotional intelligence from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. , 2000 .

[7]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  The adaptive decision maker , 1993 .

[8]  P. Costa,et al.  Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. , 1997 .

[9]  C. Barbaranelli,et al.  The "big five questionnaire": A new questionnaire to assess the five factor model , 1993 .

[10]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  The need for cognition. , 1982 .

[11]  S. Fiske,et al.  The Handbook of Social Psychology , 1935 .

[12]  J. Ford,et al.  Process tracing methods: Contributions, problems, and neglected research questions , 1989 .

[13]  L. Cosmides.  The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task , 1989, Cognition.

[14]  D. E. Over,et al.  Social roles and utilities in reasoning with deontic conditionals , 1991, Cognition.

[15]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Compensatory Choice Models of Noncompensatory Processes: The Effect of Varying Context , 1984 .

[16]  T. R. Stewart,et al.  Aging and multiple cue probability learning: the case of inverse relationships. , 1997, Acta psychologica.

[17]  J. Bettman,et al.  Effects of Prior Knowledge and Experience and Phase of the Choice Process on Consumer Decision Processes: A Protocol Analysis , 1980 .

[18]  Dan Zakay,et al.  The Role of Personal Tendencies in the Selection of Decision-Making Strategies , 1990 .

[19]  Keith E. Stanovich,et al.  Individual differences in rational thought. , 1998 .

[20]  John W. Payne,et al.  Monitoring Information Processing and Decisions: The Mouselab System , 1989 .

[21]  E. Brunswik.  The conceptual focus of some psychological systems , 1939 .

[22]  G. Vining,et al.  Data Analysis: A Model-Comparison Approach , 1989 .

[23]  John A. Johnson,et al.  Handbook of personality psychology. , 1997 .

[24]  B. Foss.  New Horizons in Psychology 1 , 1966 .

[25]  A. Bröder.  Decision making with the "adaptive toolbox": influence of environmental structure, intelligence, and working memory load. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[26]  Levin,et al.  Information Processing at Successive Stages of Decision Making: Need for Cognition and Inclusion-Exclusion Effects. , 2000, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.