Here we report persistent choice variability in the presence of a simple decision rule. Two analogous choice problems are presented, both of which involve making decisions about how to prioritize goals. In one version, participants choose a place to stand to throw a beanbag into one of two hoops. In the other, they must choose a place to fixate to detect a target that could appear in one of two boxes. In both cases, participants do not know which of the locations will be the target when they make their choice. The optimal solution to both problems follows the same, simple logic: when targets are close together, standing at/fixating the midpoint is the best choice. When the targets are far apart, accuracy from the midpoint falls, and standing/fixating close to one potential target achieves better accuracy. People do not follow, or even approach, this optimal strategy, despite substantial potential benefits for performance. Two interventions were introduced to try and shift participants from sub-optimal, variable responses to following a fixed, rational rule. First, we put participants into circumstances in which the solution was obvious. After participants correctly solved the problem there, we immediately presented the slightly-less-obvious context. Second, we guided participants to make choices that followed an optimal strategy, and then removed the guidance and let them freely choose. Following both of these interventions, participants immediately returned to a variable, sub-optimal pattern of responding. The results show that while constructing and implementing rational decision rules is possible, making variable responses to choice problems is a strong and persistent default mode. Borrowing concepts from classic animal learning studies, we suggest this default may persist because choice variability can provide opportunities for reinforcement learning.
Corporate pension plans and investment choices: Bargaining or conforming?