↓ Skip to main content

Taking the easy way out? Increasing implementation effort reduces probability maximizing under cognitive load

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Taking the easy way out? Increasing implementation effort reduces probability maximizing under cognitive load
Published in
Memory & Cognition, February 2016
DOI 10.3758/s13421-016-0595-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christin Schulze, Ben R. Newell

Abstract

Cognitive load has previously been found to have a positive effect on strategy selection in repeated risky choice. Specifically, whereas inferior probability matching often prevails under single-task conditions, optimal probability maximizing sometimes dominates when a concurrent task competes for cognitive resources. We examined the extent to which this seemingly beneficial effect of increased task demands hinges on the effort required to implement each of the choice strategies. Probability maximizing typically involves a simple repeated response to a single option, whereas probability matching requires choice proportions to be tracked carefully throughout a sequential choice task. Here, we flipped this pattern by introducing a manipulation that made the implementation of maximizing more taxing and, at the same time, allowed decision makers to probability match via a simple repeated response to a single option. The results from two experiments showed that increasing the implementation effort of probability maximizing resulted in decreased adoption rates of this strategy. This was the case both when decision makers simultaneously learned about the outcome probabilities and responded to a dual task (Exp. 1) and when these two aspects were procedurally separated in two distinct stages (Exp. 2). We conclude that the effort involved in implementing a choice strategy is a key factor in shaping repeated choice under uncertainty. Moreover, highlighting the importance of implementation effort casts new light on the sometimes surprising and inconsistent effects of cognitive load that have previously been reported in the literature.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 22%
Student > Bachelor 8 16%
Student > Master 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Professor 4 8%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 49%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 6%
Unspecified 1 2%
Linguistics 1 2%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 11 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 July 2016.
All research outputs
#18,441,836
of 22,849,304 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#1,373
of 1,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,134
of 297,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#21
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,849,304 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,573 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 297,534 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.