Jörg Rieskamp

The Probabilistic Nature of Preferential Choice

Previous research has developed a variety of theories explaining when and why peoples decisions under risk deviate from the standard economic view of expected utility maximization. These theories are limited in their predictive accuracy in that they do not explain the probabilistic nature of preferential choice, that is, why an individual makes different choices in nearly identical situations, or why the magnitude of these inconsistencies varies in different situations. To illustrate the advantage of probabilistic theories, three probabilistic theories of decision making under risk are compared with their deterministic counterparts. The probabilistic theories are (a) a probabilistic version of a simple choice heuristic, (b) a probabilistic version of cumulative prospect theory, and (c) decision field theory. By testing the theories with the data from three experimental studies, the superiority of the probabilistic models over their deterministic counterparts in predicting peoples decisions under risk become evident. When testing the probabilistic theories against each other, decision field theory provides the best account of the observed behavior.

Neurobiology of Value Integration: When Value Impacts Valuation

Everyday choice options have advantages (positive values) and disadvantages (negative values) that need to be integrated into an overall subjective value. For decades, economic models have assumed that when a person evaluates a choice option, different values contribute independently to the overall subjective value of the option. However, human choice behavior often violates this assumption, suggesting interactions between values. To investigate how qualitatively different advantages and disadvantages are integrated into an overall subjective value, we measured the brain activity of human subjects using fMRI while they were accepting or rejecting choice options that were combinations of monetary reward and physical pain. We compared different subjective value models on behavioral and neural data. These models all made similar predictions of choice behavior, suggesting that behavioral data alone are not sufficient to uncover the underlying integration mechanism. Strikingly, a direct model comparison on brain data decisively demonstrated that interactive value integration (where values interact and affect overall valuation) predicts neural activity in value-sensitive brain regions significantly better than the independent mechanism. Furthermore, effective connectivity analyses revealed that value-dependent changes in valuation are associated with modulations in subgenual anterior cingulate cortex–amygdala coupling. These results provide novel insights into the neurobiological underpinnings of human decision making involving the integration of different values.

The Neural Basis of Following Advice

Learning by following explicit advice is fundamental for human cultural evolution, yet the neurobiology of adaptive social learning is largely unknown. Here, we used simulations to analyze the adaptive value of social learning mechanisms, computational modeling of behavioral data to describe cognitive mechanisms involved in social learning, and model-based functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to identify the neurobiological basis of following advice. One-time advice received before learning had a sustained influence on peoples learning processes. This was best explained by social learning mechanisms implementing a more positive evaluation of the outcomes from recommended options. Computer simulations showed that this “outcome-bonus” accumulates more rewards than an alternative mechanism implementing higher initial reward expectation for recommended options. fMRI results revealed a neural outcome-bonus signal in the septal area and the left caudate. This neural signal coded rewards in the absence of advice, and crucially, it signaled greater positive rewards for positive and negative feedback after recommended rather than after non-recommended choices. Hence, our results indicate that following advice is intrinsically rewarding. A positive correlation between the models outcome-bonus parameter and amygdala activity after positive feedback directly relates the computational model to brain activity. These results advance the understanding of social learning by providing a neurobiological account for adaptive learning from advice.

The influence of information redundancy on probabilistic inferences

Information redundancy affects the accuracy of inference strategies. A simulation study illustrates that under high-information redundancy simple heuristics that rely on only the most important information are as accurate as strategies that integrate all available information, whereas under low redundancy integrating information becomes advantageous. Assuming that people exercise adaptive strategy selection, it is predicted that their inferences will more often be captured by simple heuristics that focus on part of the available information in situations of high-information redundancy, especially when information search is costly. This prediction is confirmed in two experiments. The participants’ task was to repeatedly infer which of two alternatives, described by several cues, had a higher criterion value. In the first experiment, simple heuristics predicted the inference process better under high-information redundancy than under low-information redundancy. In the second experiment, this result could be generalized to an inference situation in which participants had no prior opportunity to learn about the strategies’ accuracies through outcome feedback. The results demonstrate that people are able to respond adaptively to different decision environments under various learning opportunities.

Deciding When to Decide: Time-Variant Sequential Sampling Models Explain the Emergence of Value-Based Decisions in the Human Brain

The cognitive and neuronal mechanisms of perceptual decision making have been successfully linked to sequential sampling models. These models describe the decision process as a gradual accumulation of sensory evidence over time. The temporal evolution of economic choices, however, remains largely unexplored. We tested whether sequential sampling models help to understand the formation of value-based decisions in terms of behavior and brain responses. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure brain activity while human participants performed a buying task in which they freely decided upon how and when to choose. Behavior was accurately predicted by a time-variant sequential sampling model that uses a decreasing rather than fixed decision threshold to estimate the time point of the decision. Presupplementary motor area, caudate nucleus, and anterior insula activation was associated with the accumulation of evidence over time. Furthermore, at the beginning of the decision process the fMRI signal in these regions accounted for trial-by-trial deviations from behavioral model predictions: relatively high activation preceded relatively early responses. The updating of value information was correlated with signals in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, left and right orbitofrontal cortex, and ventral striatum but also in the primary motor cortex well before the response itself. Our results support a view of value-based decisions as emerging from sequential sampling of evidence and suggest a close link between the accumulation process and activity in the motor system when people are free to respond at any time.

Testing Adaptive Toolbox Models : A Bayesian Hierarchical Approach

Many theories of human cognition postulate that people are equipped with a repertoire of strategies to solve the tasks they face. This theoretical framework of a cognitive toolbox provides a plausible account of intra- and interindividual differences in human behavior. Unfortunately, it is often unclear how to rigorously test the toolbox framework. How can a toolbox model be quantitatively specified? How can the number of toolbox strategies be limited to prevent uncontrolled strategy sprawl? How can a toolbox model be formally tested against alternative theories? The authors show how these challenges can be met by using Bayesian inference techniques. By means of parameter recovery simulations and the analysis of empirical data across a variety of domains (i.e., judgment and decision making, childrens cognitive development, function learning, and perceptual categorization), the authors illustrate how Bayesian inference techniques allow toolbox models to be quantitatively specified, strategy sprawl to be contained, and toolbox models to be rigorously tested against competing theories. The authors demonstrate that their approach applies at the individual level but can also be generalized to the group level with hierarchical Bayesian procedures. The suggested Bayesian inference techniques represent a theoretical and methodological advancement for toolbox theories of cognition and behavior.

Simple predictions fueled by capacity limitations : When are they successful?

Counterintuitively, Y. Kareev, I. Lieberman, and M. Lev (1997) found that a lower short-term memory capacity benefits performance on a correlation detection task. They assumed that people with low short-term memory capacity (low spans) perceived the correlations as more extreme because they relied on smaller samples, which are known to exaggerate correlations. The authors consider, as an alternative hypothesis, that low spans do not perceive exaggerated correlations but make simpler predictions. Modeling both hypotheses in ACT-R demonstrates that simpler predictions impair performance if the environment changes, whereas a more exaggerated perception of correlation is advantageous to detect a change. Congruent with differences in the way participants make predictions, 2 experiments revealed a low capacity advantage before the environment changes but a high capacity advantage afterward, although this pattern of results surprisingly only existed for men.

The mapping model: A cognitive theory of quantitative estimation

How do people make quantitative estimations, such as estimating a cars selling price? Traditionally, linear-regression-type models have been used to answer this question. These models assume that people weight and integrate all information available to estimate a criterion. The authors propose an alternative cognitive theory for quantitative estimation. The mapping model, inspired by the work of N. R. Brown and R. S. Siegler (1993) on metrics and mappings, offers a heuristic approach to decision making. The authors test this model against established alternative models of estimation, namely, linear regression, an exemplar model, and a simple estimation heuristic. With 4 experimental studies the authors compare the models under different environmental conditions. The mapping model proves to be a valid model to predict peoples estimates.

An Introduction to Bayesian Hypothesis Testing for Management Research

In management research, empirical data are often analyzed using p-value null hypothesis significance testing (pNHST). Here we outline the conceptual and practical advantages of an alternative analysis method: Bayesian hypothesis testing and model selection using the Bayes factor. In contrast to pNHST, Bayes factors allow researchers to quantify evidence in favor of the null hypothesis. Also, Bayes factors do not require adjustment for the intention with which the data were collected. The use of Bayes factors is demonstrated through an extended example for hierarchical regression based on the design of an experiment recently published in the Journal of Management. This example also highlights the fact that p values overestimate the evidence against the null hypothesis, misleading researchers into believing that their findings are more reliable than is warranted by the data.

Forgetting Constrains the Emergence of Cooperative Decision Strategies

Theoretical studies of cooperative behavior have focused on decision strategies that depend on a partners last choices. The findings from this work assume that players accurately remember past actions. The kind of memory that these strategies employ, however, does not reflect what we know about memory. Here, we show that human memory may not meet the requirements needed to use these strategies. When asked to recall the previous behavior of simulated partners in a cooperative memory task, participants performed poorly, making errors in 10-24% of the trials. Participants made more errors when required to track more partners. We conducted agent-based simulations to evaluate how well cooperative strategies cope with error. These simulations suggest that, even with few errors, cooperation could not be maintained at the error rates demonstrated by our participants. Our results indicate that the strategies typically used in the study of cooperation likely do not reflect the underlying cognitive capacities used by humans and other animals in social interactions. By including unrealistic assumptions about cognition, theoretical models may have overestimated the robustness of the existing cooperative strategies. To remedy this, future models should incorporate what we know about cognition.