Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Examines how goals influence attention and decision-making in value-based choices, indicating strategic cognitive control.
Humans can flexibly adjust how they make decisions to arbitrary goals. However, most theories in decision-making focus on predicting one specific choice type (i.e., choosing the best option). Here, we link decision-making and cognitive-control research to test a theory that accounts for flexible adjustments of choice mechanisms to different goals and demands. Our biologically inspired model specifies how different features translate into evidence for the current goal, and how evidence is mapped onto different output structures. We tested the model in an eye-tracking study in which participants were asked to choose one out of four consumer products or to appraise the entire set, each with respect to positive or negative value. The results confirmed our preregistered hypotheses that response time (RT) should decrease with the overall value of a set of options in choose-best but increase in choose-worst trials. As predicted, this interaction was absent in appraisal RT, which instead exhibited an inverted-U-shaped pattern. Furthermore, the amount of attention devoted to an option was positively related to its value in choose-best, negatively related in choose-worst trials, and unrelated when participants appraised entire sets of products. Time-resolved analyses of eye movements revealed strategic goal-dependent search processes, as attention is increasingly focused on goal-congruent options in choice but remains more uniformly distributed in appraisal. Our findings suggest that cognitive control shapes choice and search dynamics by flexibly adjusting them to current goals and demands.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Frömer et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: