Failure of intuition when presented with a choice between investing in a single goal or splitting resources between two goals

Alasdair D. F. Clarke, Amelia R. Hunt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)
6 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In a series of related experiments, we asked people to choose whether to split their attention between two equally likely potential tasks or to prioritize one task at the expense of the other. In such a choice, when the tasks are easy, the best strategy is to prepare for both of them. As difficulty increases beyond the point at which people can perform both tasks accurately, they should switch strategy and focus on one task at the expense of the other. Across three very different tasks (target detection, throwing, and memory), none of the participants switched their strategy at the correct point. Moreover, the majority consistently failed to modify their strategy in response to changes in task difficulty. This failure may have been related to uncertainty about their own ability, because in a version of the experiment in which there was no uncertainty, participants uniformly switched at an optimal point.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)64-74
Number of pages11
JournalPsychological Science
Volume27
Issue number1
Early online date8 Dec 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2016

Fingerprint

Intuition
Uncertainty
Aptitude

Keywords

  • decision making
  • optimal behavior
  • open data

Cite this

Failure of intuition when presented with a choice between investing in a single goal or splitting resources between two goals. / Clarke, Alasdair D. F.; Hunt, Amelia R.

In: Psychological Science, Vol. 27, No. 1, 01.01.2016, p. 64-74.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{dda6dd645048499dbce3c19179380b0f,
title = "Failure of intuition when presented with a choice between investing in a single goal or splitting resources between two goals",
abstract = "In a series of related experiments, we asked people to choose whether to split their attention between two equally likely potential tasks or to prioritize one task at the expense of the other. In such a choice, when the tasks are easy, the best strategy is to prepare for both of them. As difficulty increases beyond the point at which people can perform both tasks accurately, they should switch strategy and focus on one task at the expense of the other. Across three very different tasks (target detection, throwing, and memory), none of the participants switched their strategy at the correct point. Moreover, the majority consistently failed to modify their strategy in response to changes in task difficulty. This failure may have been related to uncertainty about their own ability, because in a version of the experiment in which there was no uncertainty, participants uniformly switched at an optimal point.",
keywords = "decision making, optimal behavior, open data",
author = "Clarke, {Alasdair D. F.} and Hunt, {Amelia R.}",
note = "Acknowledgments: We thank Alex Irvine, Melissa Spilioti, and a group of 3rd-year students for their help with data collection, and Peter Neri, Rob McIntosh, Sandrina Ritzmann, and James Sheils for their valuable input. Funding: This work was supported by a James S. McDonnell Foundation Scholar Award (to A. R. Hunt)",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0956797615611933",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "64--74",
journal = "Psychological Science",
issn = "0956-7976",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Failure of intuition when presented with a choice between investing in a single goal or splitting resources between two goals

AU - Clarke, Alasdair D. F.

AU - Hunt, Amelia R.

N1 - Acknowledgments: We thank Alex Irvine, Melissa Spilioti, and a group of 3rd-year students for their help with data collection, and Peter Neri, Rob McIntosh, Sandrina Ritzmann, and James Sheils for their valuable input. Funding: This work was supported by a James S. McDonnell Foundation Scholar Award (to A. R. Hunt)

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - In a series of related experiments, we asked people to choose whether to split their attention between two equally likely potential tasks or to prioritize one task at the expense of the other. In such a choice, when the tasks are easy, the best strategy is to prepare for both of them. As difficulty increases beyond the point at which people can perform both tasks accurately, they should switch strategy and focus on one task at the expense of the other. Across three very different tasks (target detection, throwing, and memory), none of the participants switched their strategy at the correct point. Moreover, the majority consistently failed to modify their strategy in response to changes in task difficulty. This failure may have been related to uncertainty about their own ability, because in a version of the experiment in which there was no uncertainty, participants uniformly switched at an optimal point.

AB - In a series of related experiments, we asked people to choose whether to split their attention between two equally likely potential tasks or to prioritize one task at the expense of the other. In such a choice, when the tasks are easy, the best strategy is to prepare for both of them. As difficulty increases beyond the point at which people can perform both tasks accurately, they should switch strategy and focus on one task at the expense of the other. Across three very different tasks (target detection, throwing, and memory), none of the participants switched their strategy at the correct point. Moreover, the majority consistently failed to modify their strategy in response to changes in task difficulty. This failure may have been related to uncertainty about their own ability, because in a version of the experiment in which there was no uncertainty, participants uniformly switched at an optimal point.

KW - decision making

KW - optimal behavior

KW - open data

U2 - 10.1177/0956797615611933

DO - 10.1177/0956797615611933

M3 - Article

VL - 27

SP - 64

EP - 74

JO - Psychological Science

JF - Psychological Science

SN - 0956-7976

IS - 1

ER -