Take The First: Option-generation and resulting choices☆
Introduction
How do people choose what to choose from? That is, how do people generate possible solutions to a task when they are not restricted to selecting from among a set of alternatives given to them? Unfortunately, this question has received relatively little attention in the judgment and decision-making literature, compared with the study of people’s choices among given alternatives. Although there exist research streams such as the work of Gettys and colleagues (e.g., Engelmann & Gettys, 1985; Gettys, Mehle, & Fisher, 1986; Gettys, Pliske, Manning, & Casey, 1987) and Klein and colleagues (e.g., Klein & Wolf, 1998; Klein, Wolf, Militello, & Zsambok, 1995), the topic of option generation seems to be underrepresented, when considering its vital importance. Descriptively, examining the option-generation process can help us to better understand human decision behavior and develop more precise models than can be achieved solely through, e.g., process-tracing techniques of choices among given gambles. Practically, we can use this information to assist decision makers in some settings (e.g., business) to be more aware of their “predecisional” behavior, and perhaps we can develop prescriptive tools to help them in systematic analysis. Although contemporary decision-making models make assumptions about how people search through a set of given options—such as by using “normative” optimization methods (e.g., Luce, 2000) or “fast and frugal” heuristics (e.g., Gigerenzer & Todd, 1999)—the question remains of where these options come from, if they are not readily available. For example, Bayesian models require that the hypotheses be precisely formulated, and thus they could not be applied to option generation. Although some research makes the distinction between external search for information in the environment and internal search for information in memory (e.g., Hastie & Pennington, 1995), it is often assumed that the options are there, and one must simply discover a way to get to them. For example, subjective utility theories describe how the attributes for various options are weighted and integrated, without mentioning from where the options under consideration come.
In contrast, the current research will examine the option-generation process—how alternatives are generated “from scratch,” when they are not “out there” in the environment. To do so, the current research differs from the majority of decision-making studies in the use of a divergent-thinking task. That is, we employ a procedure that presents an ill-defined problem to which participants must develop possible solutions and select among them, rather than presenting information such that participants need only to integrate it and choose. Our theoretical model does draw on the topics mentioned above, such as memory retrieval and decision strategies (fast and frugal heuristics), as well as the existing research on generation. A brief review of the previous literature, therefore, will first be presented and related to our approach. This is followed by an introduction to the relevant concepts (memory and search). Then, we will integrate these into “Take The First,” an option-generation and choice heuristic for use in divergent-thinking situations. This will lead to predictions regarding the resultant choice behavior, and the presentation of an experiment to test these predictions. In conclusion, we will assess the validity of the model, relate our model predictions and findings to previous work, and propose directions for future research.
Section snippets
Review of literature on option generation
A great deal of relevant work has been done by Gettys and colleagues, who examined the processes that precede active choices, such as the generation of possible actions, the potential outcomes of these actions, and the assessments of each outcome’s plausibility. They propose many concepts that will be incorporated in our model, in both the generation of acts (Gettys et al., 1987) and hypotheses (Gettys et al., 1986). Gettys et al. (1986) assume that hypotheses are generated by searching memory
Take The First: An option-generation heuristic
It is imperative that we use some framework for making predictions as to how people generate options—what are the possible processes responsible, and how can these be formulated in terms of definable strategies? The model we propose and the resulting heuristic, “Take The First,” utilizes the principles of associative memory networks in conjunction with the rules of fast and frugal heuristics, discussed above.
Effects of option generation on decision making
Hypothesis 1 (H1). There will be differences in the number of options generated, depending on the strategy employed. Our definition of the strategies necessarily implies that different types of options will be generated, depending on the strategy used. However, it seems likely that there will also be different numbers of options generated depending on the strategy. For example, if there are more spatially connected nodes in a sports player’s memory (due to experience, training, perceptual bias,
Discussion
We presented a model of option generation in ill-defined tasks and a resulting heuristic for these situations. Our primary hypothesis concerning strategy use, that different strategies would result in generation of different types of options, was operationalized and confirmed. Differences were also found in the number of options generated for each strategy (H1). Subsequently, these generated options resulted in differences in choice quality, per the “less-is-more” effect (H2): the serial
References (52)
- et al.
Skill and working memory
- et al.
Divergent thinking in act generation
Acta Psychologica
(1985) Alive and well after 25 years: A review of groupthink research
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1998)- et al.
Plausibility assessments in hypothesis generation
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1986) - et al.
An evaluation of human act generation performance
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1987) - et al.
Characteristics of skilled option generation in chess
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
(1995) Value-focused thinking versus alternative-focused thinking: Effects on generation of objectives
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
(1999)- et al.
Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(2000) T-ECHO: Model of decision making to explain behaviour in experiments and simulations under time pressure
Psychology of Sport and Exercise
(2002)- et al.
The effects of logical group size on computer-mediated idea generation
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1995)
And let us not forget memory: The role of memory processes and techniques in the study of judgment and choice
Differentielle Psychologic and Persönlichkeitsforschung [Differential psychology and personality research]
Knowledge representation
Performance
Reflections of the environment in memory
Psychological Science
Plot titles
Dynamic and consequential consistency of choices between paths of decision trees
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Alternate uses
Consequences
A spreading activation theory of semantic processing
Psychological Review
Action as a fast and frugal heuristic
Minds and Machines
Long-term working memory
Psychological Review
Kreativität in Wissenschaft und Technik [Creativity in science and technics]
Wing play in team handball
Team Handball News
Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality
Psychological Review
Cited by (0)
- ☆
PROBRAL (DAAD, 1997–1999) funded this study. The experiment is part of a series of studies carried out in cooperation with the University of Heidelberg, Germany, and University of Minas Gerais, Brazil. The authors thank Anita Todd for proofreading and corrections, and Terry Connolly, Gerd Gigerenzer, Gary Klein, Torsten Reimer, Lael Schooler, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful suggestions and comments on an earlier version of this paper. In addition we thank our cooperation partners Klaus Roth, Pablo Greco, and Jörg Schorer for help in this project.