Goal-dependent flexibility in preferences formation from rapid payoff sequences

The formation of attitudes or preferences for alternatives that consist of rapid numerical sequences has been suggested to reflect either a summation or an averaging principle. Previous studies indicate the presence of two mechanisms, accumulators (that mediate summation) and population-coding (that mediate averaging), which operate in preference formation tasks of rapid numerical sequences, and are subject to task-demands and individual differences. Here, we test whether participants can flexibly control the preference mechanism they deploy as a function of the reward contingency. Towards this aim, participants in two studies (N1 = 21, N2 = 23) made choices between the same sequence alternatives in two task-framing sessions, which made the reward dependent on the sequence-sum or sequence-average, respectively. The results demonstrate that although participants show an overall bias in favour of averaging, they are also remarkably flexible in deploying an averaging or a summation type mechanism that matches the reward contingency

[1]  D. Kahneman,et al.  When More Pain Is Preferred to Less: Adding a Better End , 1993 .

[2]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  Controlled and automatic human information processing: I , 1977 .

[3]  Denis Cousineau,et al.  Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson's method , 2005 .

[4]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  DISPOSITIONAL DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE MOTIVATION : THE LIFE AND TIMES OF INDIVIDUALS VARYING IN NEED FOR COGNITION , 1996 .

[5]  S. Epstein.  Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. , 1994, The American psychologist.

[6]  Marius Usher,et al.  Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation over the Parietal Cortex Improves Approximate Numerical Averaging , 2016, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[7]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

[8]  D. Ariely.  Seeing Sets: Representation by Statistical Properties , 2001, Psychological science.

[9]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Patients' memories of painful medical treatments: real-time and retrospective evaluations of two minimally invasive procedures , 1996, Pain.

[10]  Scott D. Brown,et al.  The simplest complete model of choice response time: Linear ballistic accumulation , 2008, Cognitive Psychology.

[11]  John A. Bargh,et al.  Auto-motives: Preconscious determinants of social interaction. , 1990 .

[12]  J. Bargh.  The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition. , 1994 .

[13]  E. Diener,et al.  End Effects of Rated Life Quality: The James Dean Effect , 2001, Psychological science.

[14]  A. Treisman,et al.  Statistical processing: computing the average size in perceptual groups , 2005, Vision Research.

[15]  Marius Usher,et al.  Constructing preference from sequential samples: The impact of evaluation format on risk attitudes. , 2019, Decision.

[16]  H. Plessner,et al.  PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN Betsch et al. / IMPLICIT ATTITUDE FORMATION I Like It but I Don’t Know Why: A Value-Account Approach to Implicit Attitude Formation , 2022 .

[17]  G. Bodenhausen,et al.  Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: an integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. , 2006, Psychological bulletin.

[18]  A. Treisman,et al.  Representation of statistical properties , 2003, Vision Research.

[19]  Shaul Hochstein,et al.  Perceiving set mean and range: Automaticity and precision. , 2018, Journal of vision.

[20]  N. Sriram,et al.  Category learning and change: differences in sensitivity to information that enhances or reduces intercategory distinctions. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[21]  J. Duncan,et al.  Intelligence and the Frontal Lobe: The Organization of Goal-Directed Behavior , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

[22]  Jason M Haberman,et al.  Seeing the mean: ensemble coding for sets of faces. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[23]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Loss aversion and inhibition in dynamical models of multialternative choice. , 2004, Psychological review.

[24]  D. Vickers,et al.  Evidence for an accumulator model of psychophysical discrimination. , 1970, Ergonomics.

[25]  David J. Samson,et al.  Intuitive averaging of categorized numerical stimuli , 1983 .

[26]  James L. McClelland,et al.  The time course of perceptual choice: the leaky, competing accumulator model. , 2001, Psychological review.

[27]  Bertram Gawronski,et al.  At the boundaries of automaticity: negation as reflective operation. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[28]  Tilmann Betsch,et al.  Different principles of information integration in implicit and explicit attitude formation , 2006 .

[29]  D. Kahneman.  Thinking, Fast and Slow , 2011 .

[30]  M. Usher,et al.  Why We Should Quit While We’re Ahead: When Do Averages Matter More Than Sums? , 2019, Decision.

[31]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Multialternative decision field theory: a dynamic connectionist model of decision making. , 2001, Psychological review.

[32]  Marius Usher,et al.  Adaptive Spontaneous Transitions between Two Mechanisms of Numerical Averaging , 2015, Scientific Reports.