↓ Skip to main content

The Nature of Belief-Directed Exploratory Choice in Human Decision-Making

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Nature of Belief-Directed Exploratory Choice in Human Decision-Making
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00398
Pubmed ID
Authors

W. Bradley Knox, A. Ross Otto, Peter Stone, Bradley C. Love

Abstract

In non-stationary environments, there is a conflict between exploiting currently favored options and gaining information by exploring lesser-known options that in the past have proven less rewarding. Optimal decision-making in such tasks requires considering future states of the environment (i.e., planning) and properly updating beliefs about the state of the environment after observing outcomes associated with choices. Optimal belief-updating is reflective in that beliefs can change without directly observing environmental change. For example, after 10 s elapse, one might correctly believe that a traffic light last observed to be red is now more likely to be green. To understand human decision-making when rewards associated with choice options change over time, we develop a variant of the classic "bandit" task that is both rich enough to encompass relevant phenomena and sufficiently tractable to allow for ideal actor analysis of sequential choice behavior. We evaluate whether people update beliefs about the state of environment in a reflexive (i.e., only in response to observed changes in reward structure) or reflective manner. In contrast to purely "random" accounts of exploratory behavior, model-based analyses of the subjects' choices and latencies indicate that people are reflective belief updaters. However, unlike the Ideal Actor model, our analyses indicate that people's choice behavior does not reflect consideration of future environmental states. Thus, although people update beliefs in a reflective manner consistent with the Ideal Actor, they do not engage in optimal long-term planning, but instead myopically choose the option on every trial that is believed to have the highest immediate payoff.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 3%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Denmark 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 113 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 21%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Researcher 10 8%
Student > Master 9 7%
Professor 5 4%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 49 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 34 28%
Neuroscience 8 7%
Computer Science 6 5%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 52 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 July 2019.
All research outputs
#14,443,950
of 24,240,330 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#14,374
of 32,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,923
of 251,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#238
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,240,330 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,592 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 251,549 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 481 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.