New research unveils the mathematical principles that explain how our inherent biases and additional information shape our decision-making processes.
A recent study conducted by a professor from Florida State University and their colleagues sheds light on the mathematics that influences how our initial inclinations and further information impact our choices.
The research demonstrates that when people make decisions quickly, they are more likely to be swayed by their initial biases—essentially a tendency towards preferring one of the options available. On the other hand, if decision-makers take their time to gather more information, their conclusions tend to be less biased. The findings were published today in Physical Review E.
“While the main outcome seems somewhat instinctive, the mathematical methods we used to validate this finding were quite complex,” explained co-author Bhargav Karamched, an assistant professor in FSU’s Department of Mathematics and the Institute of Molecular Biophysics. “We observed that the first person to decide in a group tends to follow a nearly straight path in their reasoning, while the last person often wavers, weighing different options for a while before reaching a conclusion. Despite each individual’s belief model being essentially the same except for their initial bias, the patterns of decision-making and statistics are distinctly different for each person.”
The research team created a mathematical model to simulate a group of decision-makers who must choose between a correct conclusion and an incorrect one. The model assumed that each participant was acting based on rationality, meaning they relied on their innate biases and the information available, rather than being influenced by the choices of others in the group.
Interestingly, even with solid evidence and the assumption of perfect rational thinking, initial bias led the earliest decision-makers in the model to reach incorrect conclusions half the time. However, as participants gathered more information, they behaved more like unbiased individuals and were more likely to arrive at the right answer.
In reality, people’s decisions are often influenced by various factors such as emotions, choices made by peers, and countless other elements. This research provides a framework indicating how individuals in a group should ideally make rational decisions. Future studies may analyze real-world data against this model to identify where people’s choices deviate from these rational standards and explore potential reasons for those deviations.
The researchers’ study utilized a drift diffusion model, which merges two concepts: an individual’s propensity to “drift” towards a conclusion based on evidence, and the random “diffusion,” or variability, of the information presented.
The insights gained from this work could be utilized to understand scenarios where individuals are unduly influenced by early decisions or fall prey to groupthink. Additionally, it may shed light on other complex systems involving many interacting elements, such as the immune response or neuronal behavior.
“There remains much work to be done in comprehending decision-making in more intricate situations, like when confronted with multiple choices, but this serves as a solid foundation,” Karamched noted.
This study was a collaborative effort involving doctoral candidate Samantha Linn, Associate Professor Sean D. Lawley from the University of Utah, Associate Professor Zachary P. Kilpatrick from the University of Colorado, and Professor Krešimir Josic from the University of Houston.
The research was funded by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.
