Large prospective losses lead to sub-optimal sensorimotor decisions in humans
Adkins, T. J.; Lewis, R. L.; Lee, T. G.
Show abstract
The rationality of human behavior has been a major problem in philosophy for centuries. The pioneering work of Kahneman and Tversky provides strong evidence that people are not rational. Recent work in psychophysics argues that incentivized sensorimotor decisions (such as deciding where to reach to get a reward) maximizes expected gain, suggesting that it may be impervious to cognitive biases and heuristics. We rigorously tested this hypothesis using multiple experiments and multiple computational models. We obtained strong evidence that people deviated from the objectively rational strategy when potential losses were large. They instead appeared to follow a strategy in which they simplify the decision problem and satisfice rather than optimize. This work is consistent with the framework known as bounded rationality, according to which people behave rationally given their computational limitations.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Spontaneous eye blink rate predicts individual differences in exploration and exploitation during reinforcement learning 95%
- Change point detection with multiple alternatives reveals parallel evaluation of the same stream of evidence along distinct timescales 95%
- Statistical determinants of visuomotor adaption along different dimensions during naturalistic 3D reaches 95%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.