Are two heads better than one?
Presentation Type
Abstract
Faculty Advisor
Michael Bixter
Access Type
Event
Start Date
25-4-2025 12:00 PM
End Date
25-4-2025 1:00 PM
Description
Many important life decisions are made by pairs or small groups. Thus, it is important to know if better decisions are made by groups of individuals working together versus alone. This study utilized a dynamic decision making task that involved the choice between two options on each trial. A reward was earned after each choice. Whereas the selection of one of the choice options returned a higher payoff immediately, repeated selection of this option across trials led to suboptimal payoffs by the end of the task. Therefore, optimal performance on the task required exploring and learning the task payoff structure and making decisions that maximize long-term rewards by the end of the task. Participants completed the task either alone or in pairs (dyads). Overall task performance did not significantly differ between the individual and the dyad conditions (p = .982), demonstrating that two decision makers do not always produce superior decision performance. Follow-up analysis explored performance broken down by blocks of trials so that rates of learning could be estimated (i.e., from the beginning to the end of the task). Performance significantly increased during the task (p < .001), showing that participants were able to learn more optimal decision strategies. However, condition (individual vs. dyad) did not interact with trial block (p = .868), demonstrating that individuals and dyads exhibited a similar rate of learning throughout the task. A follow-up study is currently being analyzed where dyads completed the task individually both before and after collaboration. Results will help demonstrate if previously working with others allows individuals to subsequently exhibit more optimal decision strategies when making decisions alone.
Are two heads better than one?
Many important life decisions are made by pairs or small groups. Thus, it is important to know if better decisions are made by groups of individuals working together versus alone. This study utilized a dynamic decision making task that involved the choice between two options on each trial. A reward was earned after each choice. Whereas the selection of one of the choice options returned a higher payoff immediately, repeated selection of this option across trials led to suboptimal payoffs by the end of the task. Therefore, optimal performance on the task required exploring and learning the task payoff structure and making decisions that maximize long-term rewards by the end of the task. Participants completed the task either alone or in pairs (dyads). Overall task performance did not significantly differ between the individual and the dyad conditions (p = .982), demonstrating that two decision makers do not always produce superior decision performance. Follow-up analysis explored performance broken down by blocks of trials so that rates of learning could be estimated (i.e., from the beginning to the end of the task). Performance significantly increased during the task (p < .001), showing that participants were able to learn more optimal decision strategies. However, condition (individual vs. dyad) did not interact with trial block (p = .868), demonstrating that individuals and dyads exhibited a similar rate of learning throughout the task. A follow-up study is currently being analyzed where dyads completed the task individually both before and after collaboration. Results will help demonstrate if previously working with others allows individuals to subsequently exhibit more optimal decision strategies when making decisions alone.
Comments
Poster presentation at the 2025 Student Research Symposium.