A Foraging-Theory-Based Model Captures the Spectrum of Human Behavioral Diversity in Sequential Decision Making.

Area of Science:

• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Computational Psychiatry
• Decision Science

Background:

• Decision-making research often models choices by comparing option values.
• This assumption is prevalent in cognitive neuroscience and computational psychiatry.
• Simultaneously presented options are common in real-world and experimental settings.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate the decision-making process for multiple, simultaneously presented options.
• To challenge the dominant value-comparison model with an alternative.
• To assess the impact of different decision models on understanding individual differences and behavioral health.

Main Methods:

• A large-scale study with 1000 participants was conducted.
• Model fits and generative performance were compared between value-comparison and compare-to-threshold (foraging-based) models.
• Converging lines of evidence were used to validate findings.

Main Results:

• Humans utilize a compare-to-threshold decision process, akin to foraging, rather than value comparison.
• Value-comparison models have inherent limitations in capturing behavioral strategy diversity.
• The foraging-based model provided a less biased representation of behavior and better captured individual differences.

Conclusions:

• The compare-to-threshold model offers a more ecologically valid account of decision-making with multiple options.
• Current value-comparison models may underestimate individual differences and reduce sensitivity in linking behavior to neural activity or psychiatric symptoms.
• Future research in cognitive neuroscience and computational psychiatry should consider foraging-like models for enhanced accuracy and individual difference analysis.