Literature DB >> 25868112

Of matchers and maximizers: How competition shapes choice under risk and uncertainty.

Christin Schulze1, Don van Ravenzwaaij2, Ben R Newell3.   

Abstract

In a world of limited resources, scarcity and rivalry are central challenges for decision makers-animals foraging for food, corporations seeking maximal profits, and athletes training to win, all strive against others competing for the same goals. In this article, we establish the role of competitive pressures for the facilitation of optimal decision making in simple sequential binary choice tasks. In two experiments, competition was introduced with a computerized opponent whose choice behavior reinforced one of two strategies: If the opponent probabilistically imitated participant choices, probability matching was optimal; if the opponent was indifferent, probability maximizing was optimal. We observed accurate asymptotic strategy use in both conditions irrespective of the provision of outcome probabilities, suggesting that participants were sensitive to the differences in opponent behavior. An analysis of reinforcement learning models established that computational conceptualizations of opponent behavior are critical to account for the observed divergence in strategy adoption. Our results provide a novel appraisal of probability matching and show how this individually 'irrational' choice phenomenon can be socially adaptive under competition.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cognitive models; Competition; Decision making; Probability matching; Reinforcement learning

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25868112     DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.03.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cogn Psychol        ISSN: 0010-0285            Impact factor:   3.468


  8 in total

1.  More heads choose better than one: Group decision making can eliminate probability matching.

Authors:  Christin Schulze; Ben R Newell
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-06

2.  Taking the easy way out? Increasing implementation effort reduces probability maximizing under cognitive load.

Authors:  Christin Schulze; Ben R Newell
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2016-07

Review 3.  Optimal response vigor and choice under non-stationary outcome values.

Authors:  Amir Dezfouli; Bernard W Balleine; Richard Nock
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2019-02

Review 4.  The relative merit of empirical priors in non-identifiable and sloppy models: Applications to models of learning and decision-making : Empirical priors.

Authors:  Mikhail S Spektor; David Kellen
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-12

5.  Multimodal imaging of brain connectivity reveals predictors of individual decision strategy in statistical learning.

Authors:  Vasilis M Karlaftis; Joseph Giorgio; Petra E Vértes; Rui Wang; Yuan Shen; Peter Tino; Andrew E Welchman; Zoe Kourtzi
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2019-03-01

6.  The Effects of Heuristics and Apophenia on Probabilistic Choice.

Authors:  Zack W Ellerby; Richard J Tunney
Journal:  Adv Cogn Psychol       Date:  2017-12-31

7.  Exploration and recency as the main proximate causes of probability matching: a reinforcement learning analysis.

Authors:  Carolina Feher da Silva; Camila Gomes Victorino; Nestor Caticha; Marcus Vinícius Chrysóstomo Baldo
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-11-10       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Fast and Accurate Learning When Making Discrete Numerical Estimates.

Authors:  Adam N Sanborn; Ulrik R Beierholm
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2016-04-12       Impact factor: 4.475

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.