Recent years have witnessed a surge of interest in understanding the neural and cognitive dynamics that drive sequential decision making in general and foraging behavior in particular. Due to the intrinsic properties of most sequential decision-making paradigms, however, previous research in this area has suffered from the difficulty to disentangle properties of the decision related to (a) the value of switching to a new patch versus (b) the conflict experienced between choosing to stay or leave. Here, we show how the same problems arise in studies of sequential decision-making under risk, and how they can be overcome, taking as a specific example recent research on the `pig' dice game. In each round of the `pig' dice game, people roll a die and accumulate rewards until they either decide to proceed to the next round or lose all rewards. By combining simulation-based dissections of the task structure with two experiments, we show how an extension of the standard paradigm, together with cognitive modeling of decision-making processes, disentangles value- from conflict-related choice properties. Our study elucidates the cognitive mechanisms of sequential decision making and underscores the importance of avoiding potential pitfalls of paradigms that are commonly used in this research area.
Disentangling choice value and choice conflict in sequential decisions under risk
