ArticleJournal of cognition2025
Fluctuations in Sequential Many-Alternative Decisions Reveal Strategies Beyond Immediate Reward Maximisation.
Article in Journal of cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Humans are strategic animals. We constantly make prospective choices, allocating limited resources in situations of uncertain, future outcomes. The management of our finite monthly budget, financial investments, or the allocation of time to the different questions in an exam are just a few examples. In these scenarios, both decision-making and resource allocation tend to fluctuate over time even under invariable set of constraints. However, it is unclear whether these fluctuations affect performance and whether they underlie additional objectives beyond pure reward maximisation. We address these questions using the breadth-depth dilemma, a novel ecological protocol where participants engage in sequential multiple-choice scenarios characterised by limited capacity. We designed two experimental environments. In one environment, optimal performance, formalised with an ideal allocator model, is associated with homogeneous resource allocation across consecutive choices. In contrast, the other environment entails that fluctuating resource allocation leads to greater expected rewards. Our study evaluates participants' adherence to these scenarios and measures fluctuations as deviation from homogeneous allocations. The results revealed that participants' behaviour fluctuates more than optimal, but critically, behavioural fluctuations adapt to the available capacity and the environmental context. Moreover, our findings unveil pronounced sequential strategies, such as save-for-later and reward history-dependent choice, further implying that these strategies contribute to decision variability. An extension of the optimal allocator model demonstrates that the characteristic excess fluctuations facilitate better-informed future choices (information gain), reduce uncertainty (risk avoidance), and generate diverse potential strategies (entropy seeking). Although having a modest impact on performance, these strategies may reflect advantageous behaviours in the long run under ever changing real-world environments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.