A study recently published in the journal Motivational science shows how our first impressions can have a lasting impact on our decisions, often leading us to choose worse options in the long run, even when better ones are available. Researchers have found that people who make a particular choice early on tend to stick with it and ignore more worthwhile alternatives.
Previous studies have shown that people seek out rewarding outcomes more often than non-rewarding ones, which inherently biases their experiences. This can lead to distorted perceptions of the effectiveness of their choices. The new study aimed to show that this bias toward rewarding outcomes can create an idiosyncratic subset of experiences that leads individuals to continue choosing suboptimal options even when better alternatives are available.
“The central question that concerns me in this line of research is why people cling to false beliefs such as stereotypes or superstitions, even though they should have plenty of opportunities to test their beliefs,” says study author Chris Harris, assistant professor at Utrecht University.
“I believe a crucial factor is that the evidence we receive as a result of our actions is already heavily biased. In addition to looking at cognitive and motivational processes, we need to look at what evidence people have to work with. In previous experiments (Harris et al., 2020, JEP:G), we have shown that initial biases persist across many trials (repeated decisions) as long as people encounter a sufficient number of positive outcomes.”
“For this work, we were interested in how robust this result is, and we wondered whether a bias toward one option persists even when the alternative is actually better. As it turns out, it can. In other words, even when we make many repeated choices, and even when the alternative is better, we may continue to mistakenly think we have the best option. I believe this research has implications for why stereotypes are so pervasive.”
Harris and his colleagues conducted two experiments to investigate how initial biases influence decision making and lead to persistent suboptimal decisions, even when better alternatives are available.
In the first experiment, the researchers wanted to understand how initial biases influence decision making, even when one option is objectively better. They recruited 100 participants through Prolific Academic, an online crowdsourcing platform.
The experiment was divided into four different phases. The first phase, the induction phase, was designed to establish an initial tendency. Participants were presented with two bags, A and B, from which they could draw yellow or blue balls. One color would earn points, while the other would lose points.
During this phase, one bag (the frequent option) was shown more often than the other, despite having a slightly lower chance of receiving a reward (75% for the frequent option versus 80% for the rare option). This setup aimed to create a bias toward the frequent option due to its higher visibility, despite its lower reward probability.
After the induction phase, participants began the first estimation phase. Here, they were asked to indicate which bag they thought was more likely to yield a reward based on their experience in the induction phase. This phase served as a manipulation control to ensure that the bias induction was successful.
In the free trial phase that followed, participants were free to choose between the two bags in 83 trials. Their goal was to maximize their points, which would later be converted into a cash reward. The researchers examined the participants’ decisions to determine whether they persisted in choosing the biased option or switched to the objectively better alternative.
Finally, in the final estimation phase, participants were again asked to estimate the reward probabilities for each bag based on their experiences during the free sampling phase.
Initially, participants showed a strong preference for the frequently presented but worse option. This bias persisted throughout the free sampling phase, even though the alternative had a higher probability of rewards. The data showed that frequent positive outcomes of the biased choice reinforced the initial preference, resulting in a persistent suboptimal choice pattern.
Interestingly, participants were divided into two groups based on their initial judgments. Those with a preference for the frequent option continued to choose it more often, while participants without this initial preference were more likely to adjust their decisions toward the better option.
In the second experiment, the researchers wanted to test whether a larger difference in reward probabilities between the two options would help participants overcome their initial biases more easily. They recruited another 100 participants, similar to the first experiment, and followed a comparable procedure with some modifications.
In the induction phase in Experiment 2, a more extreme distribution of evidence was used. The frequent option resulted in a positive outcome on 67% of trials, while the rare option did so on 80% of trials. This increased discrepancy was designed to make the better option more salient and to test whether participants could more effectively overcome their initial bias.
After the introduction phase, participants again went through the first estimation phase, in which they gave their estimates of the reward probabilities of the two bags. This was followed by the free sampling phase, in which participants had to choose between the two bags in 83 trials to maximize their points. Finally, in the last estimation phase, participants were asked to re-estimate the reward probabilities based on their experience.
The results from Experiment 2 showed that although the more pronounced difference in reward probabilities helped some participants adjust their choices, initial biases still played a significant role. Participants who did not show initial preference bias managed to focus on the better option more effectively and even exceeded baseline levels of probability agreement, suggesting a preference for the objectively better choice.
However, those who initially tended to choose the frequent but worse option took longer to adapt and often made suboptimal decisions. Despite the larger difference in expected values, the initial bias from frequent presentation still led to persistent suboptimal decisions for many participants.
“I was most surprised by the second experiment: participants did eventually learn which option was better, but it took a very long time,” Harris told PsyPost. “I would have expected a clearer pattern; either that they don’t learn it or that they learn more quickly that the alternative is better.”
Both experiments highlighted the powerful influence of initial biases on decision making. Experiment 1 showed that even a small initial bias can lead to persistent suboptimal decisions, which are reinforced by frequent positive outcomes. Experiment 2 showed that increasing the discrepancy in reward probabilities between options helped some participants overcome their biases, but was not enough for all.
“When you choose the best alternative (the best lottery, the best sandwich place in town, the nice group to hang out with, …), you often learn more about that option through interaction, but not (enough) about alternatives,” Harris explains. “For example, preferring to interact with one group of people often means you interact less with other groups. However, this makes it much harder to know whether hanging out with that other group is just as fun, or maybe even more so.”
“Our choices influence what evidence we might encounter and what we can learn from it. If you’re doing well and can afford a suboptimal decision, you might want to occasionally consider some promising alternatives.”
The controlled experimental design may not fully capture the complexity of real-world decision-making processes, as numerous external factors such as social influences, emotions and environmental contexts play an important role. In addition, the short-term nature of the study did not take into account the long-term consequences of persistent biases.
“The most obvious caveat is that both experiments were limited to 100 trials,” Harris noted. “We think that’s quite long (how often do you make the same decision 100 times in real life?), but it could be that people always overcome initial biases but are simply slower than we thought (and we would need more trials to test that).”
Investigating interventions that encourage exploration rather than exploitation could help identify strategies to mitigate the persistence of suboptimal decisions and potentially lead to better decision-making in everyday life.
“I believe that a lot of bias has its origins in the evidence that people have collected, before mental processes come into play,” Harris explained. “It’s because of how the environment is structured (for example, we’re almost by definition more likely to encounter people from a majority group than people from a minority group), but it’s also because of how our behavior creates or maintains a skewed distribution of evidence. I’m interested in better understanding how this happens and how we can then intervene.”
“Of course, there are also good reasons to quickly decide on a (supposedly) best option. Exploring alternatives can be costly, either because we have to invest (e.g. time, energy, money) or because we forego potential gains by choosing a suboptimal option. For example, if you go on a first date and it went very badly, you are more likely not to go on another date. You probably don’t want to invest the time (or energy) to go on several additional dates just to be really sure that you are not a good fit.”
“But at the same time, it can lead us to jump to conclusions, especially if your choice seems promising. If you care about choosing a decent option, that’s probably fine,” Harris continued. “But if you want the best option or want an accurate representation of the choices, then sometimes it might be wise to examine the alternatives a little more closely or give second chances.”
“I would like to recommend the book Sampling in judgment and decision-making (2023) edited by Fiedler, Juslin, and Denrell. It provides a great overview of current research and theories on decision-making through experience, the larger framework within which my work also falls.”
Authors of the study “Missing out in pursuit of rewarding outcomes: Why initial biases can lead to persistent suboptimal decisions” are Chris Harris, Henk Aarts, Klaus Fiedler and Ruud Custers.
