The impact of cognitive resource constraints on goal prioritization

IF 3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Cognitive Psychology Pub Date : 2023-11-30 DOI:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2023.101618
Manikya Alister , Scott L. Herbert , David K. Sewell , Andrew Neal , Timothy Ballard
{"title":"The impact of cognitive resource constraints on goal prioritization","authors":"Manikya Alister ,&nbsp;Scott L. Herbert ,&nbsp;David K. Sewell ,&nbsp;Andrew Neal ,&nbsp;Timothy Ballard","doi":"10.1016/j.cogpsych.2023.101618","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Many decisions we face daily entail deliberation about how to coordinate resources shared between multiple, competing goals. When time permits, people appear to approach these goal prioritization problems by analytically considering all goal-relevant information to arrive at a prioritization decision. However, it is not yet clear if this normative strategy extends to situations characterized by resource constraints such as when deliberation time is scarce or cognitive load is high. We evaluated the questions of how limited deliberation time and cognitive load affect goal prioritization decisions across a series of experiments using a gamified experimental task, which required participants to make a series of interdependent goal prioritization decisions. We fit several candidate models to experimental data to identify decision strategy adaptations at the individual subject-level. Results indicated that participants tended to opt for a simple heuristic strategy when cognitive resources were constrained rather than making a general tradeoff between speed and accuracy (e.g., the type of tradeoff that would be predicted by evidence accumulation models). The most common heuristic strategy involved disproportionately weighing information about goal deadlines compared to other goal-relevant information such as the goal’s difficulty and the goal’s subjective value.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50669,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Psychology","volume":"148 ","pages":"Article 101618"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010028523000762/pdfft?md5=61f1a0abaeb53c3aab7098d7367dc5c4&pid=1-s2.0-S0010028523000762-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010028523000762","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many decisions we face daily entail deliberation about how to coordinate resources shared between multiple, competing goals. When time permits, people appear to approach these goal prioritization problems by analytically considering all goal-relevant information to arrive at a prioritization decision. However, it is not yet clear if this normative strategy extends to situations characterized by resource constraints such as when deliberation time is scarce or cognitive load is high. We evaluated the questions of how limited deliberation time and cognitive load affect goal prioritization decisions across a series of experiments using a gamified experimental task, which required participants to make a series of interdependent goal prioritization decisions. We fit several candidate models to experimental data to identify decision strategy adaptations at the individual subject-level. Results indicated that participants tended to opt for a simple heuristic strategy when cognitive resources were constrained rather than making a general tradeoff between speed and accuracy (e.g., the type of tradeoff that would be predicted by evidence accumulation models). The most common heuristic strategy involved disproportionately weighing information about goal deadlines compared to other goal-relevant information such as the goal’s difficulty and the goal’s subjective value.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
认知资源约束对目标优先级的影响。
我们每天面临的许多决策都需要考虑如何协调多个相互竞争的目标之间共享的资源。当时间允许时,人们似乎通过分析考虑所有与目标相关的信息来得出优先级决定来解决这些目标优先级问题。然而,尚不清楚这种规范性策略是否适用于资源限制的情况,例如审议时间稀缺或认知负荷高的情况。我们使用游戏化实验任务评估了有限的考虑时间和认知负荷如何影响目标优先级决策的问题,该实验任务要求参与者做出一系列相互依赖的目标优先级决策。我们将几个候选模型拟合到实验数据中,以确定个体主体层面的决策策略适应。结果表明,当认知资源受到限制时,参与者倾向于选择简单的启发式策略,而不是在速度和准确性之间进行一般的权衡(例如,证据积累模型预测的权衡类型)。最常见的启发式策略涉及不成比例地权衡关于目标截止日期的信息,而不是其他与目标相关的信息,如目标的难度和目标的主观价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cognitive Psychology
Cognitive Psychology 医学-心理学
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.80%
发文量
29
审稿时长
50 days
期刊介绍: Cognitive Psychology is concerned with advances in the study of attention, memory, language processing, perception, problem solving, and thinking. Cognitive Psychology specializes in extensive articles that have a major impact on cognitive theory and provide new theoretical advances. Research Areas include: • Artificial intelligence • Developmental psychology • Linguistics • Neurophysiology • Social psychology.
期刊最新文献
Free time, sharper mind: A computational dive into working memory improvement Editorial Board Building compressed causal models of the world Doing things efficiently: Testing an account of why simple explanations are satisfying Perceptual inference corrects function word errors in reading: Errors that are not noticed do not disrupt eye movements
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1