The Future of Decisions From Experience: Connecting Real-World Decision Problems to Cognitive Processes

Testing the convergent validity, domain generality, and temporal stability of selected measures of people's tendency to explore

Given the ubiquity of exploration in everyday life, researchers from many disciplines have developed methods to measure exploratory behaviour. There are therefore many ways to quantify and measure exploration. However, it remains unclear whether the different measures (i) have convergent validity relative to one another, (ii) capture a domain general tendency, and (iii) capture a tendency that is stable across time. In a sample of 678 participants, we found very little evidence of convergent validity for the behavioural measures (Hypothesis 1); most of the behavioural measures lacked sufficient convergent validity with one another or with the self-reports. In psychometric modelling analyses, we could not identify a good fitting model with an assumed general tendency to explore (Hypothesis 2); the best fitting model suggested that the different behavioural measures capture behaviours that are specific to the tasks. In a subsample of 254 participants who completed the study a second time, we found that the measures had stability across an 1 month timespan (Hypothesis 3). Therefore, although there were stable individual differences in how people approached each task across time, there was no generalizability across tasks, and drawing broad conclusions about exploratory behaviour from studies using these tasks may be problematic. The Stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on 2nd December 2022 https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21717407.v1 . The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/64QJU .

What's in a sample? Epistemic uncertainty and metacognitive awareness in risk taking

In a fundamentally uncertain world, sound information processing is a prerequisite for effective behavior. Given that information processing is subject to inevitable cognitive imprecision, decision makers should adapt to this imprecision and to the resulting epistemic uncertainty when taking risks. We tested this metacognitive ability in two experiments in which participants estimated the expected value of different number distributions from sequential samples and then bet on their own estimation accuracy. Results show that estimates were imprecise, and this imprecision increased with higher distributional standard deviations. Importantly, participants adapted their risk-taking behavior to this imprecision and hence deviated from the predictions of Bayesian models of uncertainty that assume perfect integration of information. To explain these results, we developed a computational model that combines Bayesian updating with a metacognitive awareness of cognitive imprecision in the integration of information. Modeling results were robust to the inclusion of an empirical measure of participants' perceived variability. In sum, we show that cognitive imprecision is crucial to understanding risk taking in decisions from experience. The results further demonstrate the importance of metacognitive awareness as a cognitive building block for adaptive behavior under (partial) uncertainty.