Harris, C., et al. (2023).
Motivation Science, 9(4), 288–297.
Abstract
While there are abundant reasons that might lead us to form wrong first impressions, further interaction (sampling) opportunities should allow us to attenuate such initial biases. Sometimes, however, theses biases persist despite repeated sampling opportunities, such as in superstitions or stereotypes. In two studies (Ns = 100), we investigate this phenomenon. We demonstrate that in a task in which participants could repeatedly choose between two options to gain rewards, erroneous initial impressions about yielded outcomes can lead to persisting biases toward a clearly inferior option. We argue that a premature focus on reward pursuit (exploitation) rather than exploration is the cause of these biases, which persist despite plenty of opportunities and a presumed motivation to overcome them. By focusing on a supposedly best option, participants never give themselves the chance to sufficiently try out alternatives and thereby overcome their initial biases. We conclude that going for the money is not always the best strategy.
The research is paywalled.
Here are some thoughts:
The study's findings paint a clear picture of how initial impressions can bias our decision-making and lead us down suboptimal paths. In the experiments, participants who developed a preference for one option early on exhibited a persistent tendency to stick with it, even when presented with a demonstrably superior alternative. This bias was further strengthened when the initially chosen option provided more frequent positive outcomes, even if the overall probability of reward was slightly lower. This frequent but slightly less rewarding reinforcement appeared to create a cycle that solidified the initial preference and led participants to make suboptimal choices
Interestingly, the researchers found that increasing the difference in reward probabilities between the two options could nudge some participants to switch to the better choice. However, this was not a foolproof solution. Those who had formed a strong initial bias in favor of the inferior option still struggled to overcome it, highlighting the tenacity of these biases.
The study's results suggest that these biases may stem from how our initial choices shape the evidence we encounter. By favoring a particular option, we limit our exposure to potentially better alternatives, hindering our ability to learn and adapt our decision-making as we gather more information.
