RT @ShenhavLab: Our newest chapter, “Breaking the tug-of-war,” reviews the lab’s latest @NIH- and @NSF-funded research that has changed the….

Our paper is finally in press! Many thanks to @froemero1, Thomas Summe, @amitaishenhav, and everyone in @ShenhavLab!.

RT @ShenhavLab: Attending #CCN2023 tomorrow? Come check out some of our lab's fantastic posters!! (P-2B.74, P-1B.92) 🧠🇬🇧🥳.

All in all, these studies show that choices can improve and feel less costly when enacted as though there are still other options possible. These benefits result from options no longer competing as strongly with one another, relieving a major source of tension in choice. 9/.

Another way people have been shown to facilitate choices is to set a tight deadline. We confirm that this is the case. However, we find that this process is enacted via a different decision mechanism than inclusivity, and led people to feel more, rather than less, conflicted. 8/

We explored if the benefit of inclusivity is tied to choosing multiple good options but avoiding choosing even one low-value option. We reversed the task, having participants remove options from a set. We found that inclusivity benefited low-value but not high-value choices. 7/

So we find that people make better choices under an inclusive mindset, but does choosing *feel* any better? Yes! Subjects reported feeling less conflicted for inclusive choices. This inclusivity benefit was especially high when choosing between the best-valued options. 6/

We show that these and other behavioral patterns from our task can be uniquely accounted for by taking a dynamic decision-making model and tuning down the level of competition between potential responses (mutual inhibition), making the decision process more “race-like”. 5/

We asked them to always pick their favorite option first, so we could compare this first choice between when they could choose more (inclusive/buffet) vs. when they could not (exclusive/menu). Remarkably, these initial choices were more efficient under a buffet mindset!.4/

We had people choose between sets of products. For some choices, they could only choose one option, in which the options were mutually exclusive (like choosing 1 dish from a menu). For others, they could choose as many options as they wanted (like choosing from a buffet). 3/

Decisions in our daily life can drain us constantly. What is the root of these choice costs? We argue that it is the tension between choosing one option at the sacrifice of others. We wanted to see if we could make choices less costly by eliminating this perceived tension. 2/

Excited to share my latest preprint with @froemero1, Thomas Summe, & @amitaishenhav: .“Mutual inclusivity improves decision-making by smoothing out choice’s competitive edge” A short 🧵.1/

RT @ShenhavLab: We’re looking for a new postdoc! If you’re interested in how people make cost-benefit decisions, including about mental eff….

RT @ShenhavLab: If you're at #CogSci2022, check out @GrahekIvan's talk Thurs morning (T2.3) on work co-led by @JasonLeng5 and w/ @mpraterfa….

RT @EffortMental: Register now for the 3rd Workshop on Mental Effort 2022 (Nov 21-22) in Providence, RI @BrownCLPS: .

RT @ShenhavLab: Attending #RLDM2022? Check out the fantastic posters being presented by members of our lab (IDs 1.141, 1.110, 2.113, & 2.1….

6/6 Overall we provide a mechanistic account for the dissociable impacts of reward and punishment on cognitive control allocation. Thanks to the contributions from @debyee29 (experiment), @harrison_ritz (modeling), and especially @amitaishenhav!.

5/6 Finally, we developed a method called Inverse Reward Rate Optimization to infer participants’ subjective valuation of rewards and punishments based on their performance.

4/6 To account for these behavioral findings, we parameterized performance with drift diffusion model and propose that people optimize a modified reward rate function with effort costs. We found that the normative predictions from this model captured participants’ behavior.

3/6 Participants had divergent strategies for reward and punishment: speeded responses for higher reward and slower but more accurate responses for higher punishment.