给定在具有独立和相同分布的奖励概率的两个或多个选项之间的重复选择,通过独占选择奖励可能性最大的选项,可以使整体回报最大化。将响应比例与奖励突发事件相匹配的趋势是次优的。然而,这种行为有据可查。已经提出了许多用于概率匹配的解释性帐户。这些包括失败的模式匹配,在脱胎换骨症的驱使下,以及启发式驱动的响应,可以通过充分的审议被推翻。我们报告了两个实验,这些实验旨在测试对任务的直觉与战略方法以及对奖励序列中存在可预测模式的信念对选择行为的相对影响,通过直接实验操作和实验后自我报告的结合。中介分析用于对影响途径进行建模。两种尝试的实验操作都没有,也没有自我报告的水平,对最大化选择的比例有显著影响。然而,策略胜于直觉的使用证明了最大化的一致预测因子,在所有实验条件下。进行了并行分析,以评估控制对奖励偶然性感知的个体差异的影响。尽管此分析表明,在标准任务准备中,脱节确实增加了概率匹配,发现这种效应是由于自我报告的脱胎换骨和感知的奖励概率之间的不可预见的关系。WSLS(WSLS)分析表明,WSLS与直觉或策略使用之间没有可靠的关系。
Given a repeated choice between two or more options with independent and identically distributed reward probabilities, overall pay-offs can be maximized by the exclusive selection of the option with the greatest likelihood of reward. The tendency to match response proportions to reward contingencies is suboptimal. Nevertheless, this behaviour is well documented. A number of explanatory accounts have been proposed for probability matching. These include failed pattern matching, driven by
apophenia, and a heuristic-driven response that can be overruled with sufficient deliberation. We report two experiments that were designed to test the relative effects on choice behaviour of both an intuitive versus strategic approach to the task and belief that there was a predictable pattern in the reward sequence, through a combination of both direct experimental manipulation and post-experimental self-report. Mediation analysis was used to model the pathways of effects. Neither of two attempted experimental manipulations of
apophenia, nor self-reported levels of
apophenia, had a significant effect on proportions of maximizing choices. However, the use of strategy over intuition proved a consistent predictor of maximizing, across all experimental conditions. A parallel analysis was conducted to assess the effect of controlling for individual variance in perceptions of reward contingencies. Although this analysis suggested that
apophenia did increase probability matching in the standard task preparation, this effect was found to result from an unforeseen relationship between self-reported
apophenia and perceived reward probabilities. A Win-Stay Lose-Shift (WSLS ) analysis indicated no reliable relationship between WSLS and either intuition or strategy use.