Assessing one's confidence in one's choices is of paramount importance to making adaptive decisions, and it is thus no surprise that humans excel in this ability. However, standard models of decision-making, such as the drift-diffusion model (DDM), treat confidence assessment as a post-hoc or parallel process that does not directly influence the choice -- the latter depends only on accumulated evidence. Here, we pursue the alternative hypothesis that what is accumulated during a decision is confidence (that the to-be selected option is the best) rather than raw evidence. Accumulating confidence has the appealing consequence that the decision threshold corresponds to a desired level of confidence for the choice, and that confidence improvements can be traded off against the resources required to secure them. We show that most previous findings on perceptual and value-based decisions traditionally interpreted from an evidence-accumulation perspective can be explained more parsimoniously from our novel confidence-driven perspective. Furthermore, we show that our novel confidence-driven DDM (cDDM) naturally generalizes to any number of decisions -- which is notoriously extemporaneous using traditional DDM or related models. Finally, we discuss future empirical evidence that could be useful in adjudicating between these alternatives.
D-S Theory for Argument Confidence Assessment
