Observed Variability and Values Matter: Toward a Better Understanding of Information Search and Decisions from Experience

The search for different options before making a consequential choice is a central aspect of many important decisions, such as mate selection or purchasing a house. Despite its importance, surprisingly little is known about how search and choice are affected by the observed and objective properties of the decision problem. Here, we analyze the effects of two key properties in a binary choice task: the options’ observed and objective values, and the variability of payoffs. First, in a large public data set of a binary choice task, we investigate how the observed value and variability relate to decision-makers’ efforts and preferences during search. Furthermore, we test how these properties influence the chance of correctly identifying the objectively maximizing option, and how they affect choice. Second, we designed a novel experiment to systematically analyze the role of the objective difference between the options. We find that a larger objective difference between options increases the chance for correctly identifying the maximizing option, but it does not affect behavior during search and choice. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  P. Wason.  On the Failure to Eliminate Hypotheses in a Conceptual Task , 1960 .

[2]  J. L. Myers,et al.  Effects of range of payoffs as a variable in risk taking. , 1960, Journal of experimental psychology.

[3]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[4]  J. Gittins.  Bandit processes and dynamic allocation indices , 1979 .

[5]  B. Brehmer.  In one word: Not from experience. , 1980 .

[6]  J. Busemeyer.  Decision making under uncertainty: a comparison of simple scalability, fixed-sample, and sequential-sampling models. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[7]  J. Townsend,et al.  Decision field theory: a dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. , 1993, Psychological review.

[8]  F E Bloom,et al.  Degrees of uncertainty. , 1995, Science.

[9]  A. Diederich,et al.  Evaluating and Combining Subjective Probability Estimates , 1997 .

[10]  R. Nickerson.  Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises , 1998 .

[11]  K Fiedler.  Beware of samples! A cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases. , 2000, Psychological review.

[12]  Y. Kareev.  Seven (indeed, plus or minus two) and the detection of correlations. , 2000, Psychological review.

[13]  D. Budescu,et al.  Averaging probability judgments: Monte Carlo analyses of asymptotic diagnostic value , 2001 .

[14]  J. March,et al.  Adaptation as Information Restriction: The Hot Stove Effect , 2001 .

[15]  R. Hertwig,et al.  Decisions from Experience and the Effect of Rare Events in Risky Choice , 2004, Psychological science.

[16]  I. Erev,et al.  On adaptation, maximization, and reinforcement learning among cognitive strategies. , 2005, Psychological review.

[17]  Y. Kareev.  And Yet the Small-Sample Effect Does Hold: Reply to Juslin and Olsson (2005) and Anderson, Doherty, Berg, and Friedrich (2005). , 2005 .

[18]  K. Fiedler,et al.  Does decision quality (always) increase with the size of information samples? Some vicissitudes in applying the law of large numbers. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[19]  Craig R. Fox,et al.  “Decisions from experience” = sampling error + prospect theory: Reconsidering Hertwig, Barron, Weber & Erev (2004) , 2006, Judgment and Decision Making.

[20]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  The physics of optimal decision making: a formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks. , 2006, Psychological review.

[21]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[22]  Angela J. Yu,et al.  Should I stay or should I go? How the human brain manages the trade-off between exploitation and exploration , 2007, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[23]  Timothy J. Pleskac,et al.  The game of life , 2008 .

[24]  Timothy J. Pleskac,et al.  The Description-Experience Gap in Risky Choice: The Role of Sample Size and Experienced Probabilities , 2008 .

[25]  Timothy J. Pleskac,et al.  The game of life : how small samples render choice simpler , 2008 .

[26]  E. Yechiam,et al.  Loss aversion, diminishing sensitivity, and the effect of experience on repeated decisions† , 2008 .

[27]  B. Newell,et al.  Biased samples not mode of presentation: Re-examining the apparent underweighting of rare events in experience-based choice , 2008 .

[28]  Craig R. Fox,et al.  Information asymmetry in decision from description versus decision from experience , 2009, Judgment and Decision Making.

[29]  Timothy J. Pleskac,et al.  Decisions from experience: Why small samples? , 2010, Cognition.

[30]  Thomas T. Hills,et al.  Information Search in Decisions From Experience , 2010, Psychological science.

[31]  Ben R. Newell,et al.  Degrees of uncertainty: An overview and framework for future research on experience‐based choice , 2010 .

[32]  Timothy J. Pleskac,et al.  Decisions From Experience and Statistical Probabilities: Why They Trigger Different Choices Than a Priori Probabilities , 2010 .

[33]  Alvin E. Roth,et al.  A choice prediction competition: Choices from experience and from description , 2010 .

[34]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Learning from delayed feedback: neural responses in temporal credit assignment , 2011, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[35]  Cleotilde González,et al.  Effects of feedback and complexity on repeated decisions from description , 2011 .

[36]  Varun Dutt,et al.  Instance-based learning: integrating sampling and repeated decisions from experience. , 2011, Psychological review.

[37]  Cleotilde González,et al.  How choice ecology influences search in decisions from experience , 2012, Cognition.

[38]  Nick Chater,et al.  Salience driven value integration explains decision biases and preference reversal , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[39]  Thomas T. Hills,et al.  Two distinct exploratory behaviors in decisions from experience: comment on Gonzalez and Dutt (2011). , 2012, Psychological review.

[40]  Cleotilde González,et al.  Refuting Data Aggregation Arguments and How the Instance-Based Learning Model Stands Criticism: A Reply to Hills and Hertwig (2012). , 2012 .

[41]  Thomas T. Hills,et al.  Two distinct exploratory behaviors in decisions from experience : Comment on Gonzalez & Dutt , 2011 Two Distinct Exploratory Behaviors in Decisions From Experience : Comment on Gonzalez & Dutt , 2012 .

[42]  Jonathan W. Leland.  Equilibrium Selection, Similarity Judgments and the "Nothing to Gain/Nothing to Lose" Effect , 2013 .

[43]  Thomas L. Griffiths,et al.  One and Done? Optimal Decisions From Very Few Samples , 2014, Cogn. Sci..

[44]  R. Hertwig.  Decisions from Experience , 2015 .

[45]  Decision Field Theory , 2022, Cognitive Choice Modeling.