Choosing to choose or not

IF 1.9 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Judgment and Decision Making Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI:10.1017/s1930297500008937
Roy Shoval, N. Karsh, Baruch Eitam
{"title":"Choosing to choose or not","authors":"Roy Shoval, N. Karsh, Baruch Eitam","doi":"10.1017/s1930297500008937","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To what degree do people prefer to choose for themselves and what drives this preference? Is it memory-based and results from a life-long association between choices and better outcomes, or is the process of choice itself reinforcing? In a new paradigm, across 6 experiments, participants experienced both ’Own Choice’ and ’Computer Picks’ conditions with identical outcomes before selecting which condition to re-experience in the final part of the experiment. Consistent with previous work, an overwhelming majority ( 83%) preferred own-choice. Several variations of the paradigm reveal that (1) Preference For Choice (PFC) is reduced when thinking about the task without actually choosing in it, (2) PFC is substantially reduced by choice-unrelated cognitive load, and (3) Preference For Choice is further diminished when selection is based on criteria other than one’s preferences. Across experiments, participants’ self-rated enjoyment predicted a significant portion of their PFC, while their perceived gains had little to no predictive value. If PFC stems solely from past reinforcement learning (i.e., memory) then neither performing another few scores of choices nor adding cognitive load to that sequence of choices would be expected to dramatically affect it. Hence, our findings suggest that a significant part of this preference stems from the process of choice itself, and that the experience it confers can itself be reinforcing. We discuss the implications of the proposed mechanism for PFC, which leads us to the prediction that PFC may be muted or even reversed under specific conditions and what this means for when the ‘opposite’ effect – sticking with the default – will occur.","PeriodicalId":48045,"journal":{"name":"Judgment and Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Judgment and Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500008937","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

To what degree do people prefer to choose for themselves and what drives this preference? Is it memory-based and results from a life-long association between choices and better outcomes, or is the process of choice itself reinforcing? In a new paradigm, across 6 experiments, participants experienced both ’Own Choice’ and ’Computer Picks’ conditions with identical outcomes before selecting which condition to re-experience in the final part of the experiment. Consistent with previous work, an overwhelming majority ( 83%) preferred own-choice. Several variations of the paradigm reveal that (1) Preference For Choice (PFC) is reduced when thinking about the task without actually choosing in it, (2) PFC is substantially reduced by choice-unrelated cognitive load, and (3) Preference For Choice is further diminished when selection is based on criteria other than one’s preferences. Across experiments, participants’ self-rated enjoyment predicted a significant portion of their PFC, while their perceived gains had little to no predictive value. If PFC stems solely from past reinforcement learning (i.e., memory) then neither performing another few scores of choices nor adding cognitive load to that sequence of choices would be expected to dramatically affect it. Hence, our findings suggest that a significant part of this preference stems from the process of choice itself, and that the experience it confers can itself be reinforcing. We discuss the implications of the proposed mechanism for PFC, which leads us to the prediction that PFC may be muted or even reversed under specific conditions and what this means for when the ‘opposite’ effect – sticking with the default – will occur.
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
选择选择或不选择
人们更喜欢在多大程度上为自己选择,是什么驱动了这种偏好?它是基于记忆的,是选择和更好的结果之间的终身联系的结果,还是选择的过程本身在强化?在一个新的范式中,在6个实验中,参与者在选择在实验的最后部分重新体验哪种条件之前,经历了“自己选择”和“计算机选择”两种结果相同的条件。与之前的工作一致,绝大多数人(83%)更喜欢自己的选择。该范式的几种变体表明,(1)当思考任务而没有实际选择时,选择偏好(PFC)会降低,(2)与选择无关的认知负荷会显著降低PFC,(3)当选择基于个人偏好以外的标准时,选择的偏好会进一步降低。在整个实验中,参与者的自我评价快乐预测了他们PFC的很大一部分,而他们感知的收益几乎没有预测价值。如果PFC完全源于过去的强化学习(即记忆),那么无论是再做几次选择,还是在选择序列中增加认知负荷,都不会对其产生显著影响。因此,我们的研究结果表明,这种偏好的很大一部分源于选择过程本身,它所赋予的体验本身也可能是强化的。我们讨论了所提出的PFC机制的含义,这使我们预测,在特定条件下,PFC可能会被抑制甚至逆转,以及当“相反”效应(坚持默认)发生时,这意味着什么。
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
Judgment and Decision Making
Judgment and Decision Making PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
The benefits of deciding now and not later: The influence of the timing between acquiring knowledge and deciding on decision confidence, omission neglect bias, and choice deferral I want to believe: Prior beliefs influence judgments about the effectiveness of both alternative and scientific medicine The final step effect Choosing more aggressive commitment contracts for others than for the self Systematic metacognitive reflection helps people discover far-sighted decision strategies: A process-tracing experiment
×
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