A Metacognitive Appraisal of Quitting in Chess.

Decisions to stop or quit are often described as choices to switch to alternative activities once the current activity ceases to be rewarding. However, popular models of stopping-such as optimal foraging theory and recent metacognitive frameworks-fail to fully capture the nuanced differences in behavior between quitting and stopping. While quitting is closely related to stopping, it remains a phenomenologically distinct experience. The absence of a clear, separate definition for quitting motivates the present study. We investigate the contextual and noncontextual factors influencing quitting decisions among chess players, utilizing a large dataset of games from an online chess platform. Our analysis reveals that players tend to persevere in higher skill brackets and against stronger opponents when they are performing poorly. Additionally, a history of quitting increases the likelihood of quitting in future games, although recent quitting episodes can have protective effects. We also find that quitting influences subsequent behavior, with players often playing more games after a recent quit. We discuss these findings within the broader context of resource-rational and metacognitive approaches. Finally, we provide a metacognitive account of quitting decisions with the aim to derive better models of complex decision-making.