Effects of Deliberation Time on Multiple Goal Pursuit
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The multiple-goal pursuit model (MGPM; Vancouver et al., 2010) has provided key insight into the dynamic prioritisation of multiple goals. Since its conception, the MGPM has been adapted to account for a variety of key features such as learning (J. Vancouver et al., 2014), goal type (i.e. approach/avoidance goals) and uncertainty(Ballard et al., 2016), self-efficacy (Vancouver & Purl, 2017), and varying deadlines (Ballard et al., 2018). However so far, the MGPM has only been tested in environments where participants have had ample time to make prioritization decisions. Consequently, this represents an opportunity to determine how well the MGPM generalises to situations where deliberation time is reduced. This is essential as there are a range of circumstances where goals must be prioritized quickly, such as in emergency rooms or on the fireground. In the MGPM, preferences for each goal accumulate by analytically deliberating over goal features until the preference for one goal reaches a threshold, at which point that goal is prioritized (Ballard et al., 2018). However, when a goal must be prioritized quickly, one might not have sufficient cognitive resources to evaluate goal features so rigorously. This suggests the MGPM may not provide a complete explanation of how cognitive resources influence the deliberation process. One way to accommodate this would be to lower the decision-making threshold, meaning preferences need not be as strong to prioritize a goal, but the process of evaluating competing goals would still be the same (Palada et al., 2016; Vuckovic et al., 2013, 2014). This would simply result in spending less time accumulating evidence for each decision, although the decision would still be based off the same information. However, another way to accommodate reduced deliberation time is to rely on heuristics (Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier, 2011). This approach would accommodate reduced deliberation time by evaluating a biased set of information, such that some information from goal features is less attended to. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of deliberation time on multiple goal pursuit. Specifically, we aim to explore whether the MGPM can account for situations where participants have less time to deliberate over which goal they will prioritize. We will test the current MGPM against three novel adaptions of the MGPM which assume a heuristic approach when deliberation time is reduced, in order to distinguish between information processing and dual-process theories of decision-making. The novel adaptions are based on three heuristics which we have identified participants might rely on when making prioritization decisions quickly: an expectancy heuristic, a valence heuristic and a deadline heuristic. The expectancy heuristic assumes participants will prioritize the goal that is easiest to achieve, the valence heuristic assumes participants will prioritize the goal with the greatest subjective urgency, and the deadline heuristic assumes participants will prioritize the goal with the nearest deadline. In the experiment, participants will complete a novel dual-goal task where participants must make prioritization decisions for two competing goals with varying amounts of time to deliberate.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,006 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».