Licensed Dietitian
588 posts
The majority of choices we make can fall into two categories: descriptive choice (based on what we are told) and experiential choice (based on our own and our friends’ personal experiences).
An example of these choices would be deciding whether or not to wear a safety belt while driving. If we are told to buckle up for our own safety, then choosing to use a safety belt would be a descriptive choice. But, if people we know never used the safety belts and have never been hurt, then choosing whether to use one or not would be an experience-based choice.
What is it that causes people to choose differently in these two situations?
Psychologists from the Indiana University decided to test if feedback in experiential choice is the cause of the different behavior between the two choice situations.
In the study, participants were told to select one monetary option from each of two situations. The first option in both situations resulted in them earning very little money, but they were guaranteed to receive it. The second option provided a very good chance (but not certain) to win a slightly larger amount of money in one situation whereas in the other situation they had a chance of earning a lot more money, but the odds of earning it were very low. Participants who were randomly assigned to groups where one group received feedback indicating their winnings in previous trials and the other group received no feedback.
The results showed that feedback plays a key role in decision making. The psychologists discovered that participants responded differently, depending on whether or not they received feedback, even though they were presented with complete descriptive information.
To cut the long story short, when people received feedback about a situation, they began to ignore information they were given about the situation. The participants who did not receive feedback tended to overweight small probabilities. This resulted in them preferring the small guaranteed outcome when compared to the slightly larger but uncertain outcome while preferring the larger, but more uncertain outcome when compared to the same small guaranteed outcome.
Those who received feedback showed the exact opposite pattern of preference. They underweighted small probabilities, preferring the slightly larger but uncertain outcome over the small guaranteed win, but chose the small, but certain win over the large but rare outcome.
The researchers noted that the group receiving feedback began to treat the small probabilities in a more objective way, suggesting that feedback after repeated choice may drive people towards rational decision making.
The authors believe that this study has implications for behavioral choice theories in both economics and psychology, as well as for neurophysiological studies aimed at discovering the neural substrates underlying choice behavior.
An example of these choices would be deciding whether or not to wear a safety belt while driving. If we are told to buckle up for our own safety, then choosing to use a safety belt would be a descriptive choice. But, if people we know never used the safety belts and have never been hurt, then choosing whether to use one or not would be an experience-based choice.
What is it that causes people to choose differently in these two situations?
Psychologists from the Indiana University decided to test if feedback in experiential choice is the cause of the different behavior between the two choice situations.
In the study, participants were told to select one monetary option from each of two situations. The first option in both situations resulted in them earning very little money, but they were guaranteed to receive it. The second option provided a very good chance (but not certain) to win a slightly larger amount of money in one situation whereas in the other situation they had a chance of earning a lot more money, but the odds of earning it were very low. Participants who were randomly assigned to groups where one group received feedback indicating their winnings in previous trials and the other group received no feedback.
The results showed that feedback plays a key role in decision making. The psychologists discovered that participants responded differently, depending on whether or not they received feedback, even though they were presented with complete descriptive information.
To cut the long story short, when people received feedback about a situation, they began to ignore information they were given about the situation. The participants who did not receive feedback tended to overweight small probabilities. This resulted in them preferring the small guaranteed outcome when compared to the slightly larger but uncertain outcome while preferring the larger, but more uncertain outcome when compared to the same small guaranteed outcome.
Those who received feedback showed the exact opposite pattern of preference. They underweighted small probabilities, preferring the slightly larger but uncertain outcome over the small guaranteed win, but chose the small, but certain win over the large but rare outcome.
The researchers noted that the group receiving feedback began to treat the small probabilities in a more objective way, suggesting that feedback after repeated choice may drive people towards rational decision making.
The authors believe that this study has implications for behavioral choice theories in both economics and psychology, as well as for neurophysiological studies aimed at discovering the neural substrates underlying choice behavior.