סמינר בשיווק

The decision whether to explore new alternatives or to choose from familiar ones is implicit in many of

our daily activities. How is this decision made? When will deviation from optimal exploration be observed? This

work was motivated by the observation that many important behavioral problems can be viewed as reflections

of inefficient exploration. For example, depression and negotiation failures have been explained as the product

of insufficient exploration, while drug abuse and unsafe sex have been attributed to over-exploration.

The current paper examines exploration decisions in the context of a multi-alternative “decisions from

experience” task. In each trial, participants could choose a familiar option (the status quo) or a new alternative

(risky exploration). The observed exploration rates were more sensitive to the frequent outcome from

choosing new alternatives than to the average outcome. That is, the implicit decision whether to explore a new

alternative reflects underweighting of rare events: Over-exploration was documented in "Rare Disasters"

environments, and insufficient exploration was evident in "Rare Treasures" environments. In addition, the

results reveal a decrease in exploration of new alternatives over time even when it is always optimal, and some

exploration even when it is never reinforcing.

These results can be captured with models that share a distinction between “data collection” and

“outcome-driven” decision modes. Under the data collection mode, the decision maker collects information

about the environment, to be used in future choices. Under the outcome-driven mode, the decision maker

relies on small samples of previous experiences with familiar vs. unfamiliar alternatives, before the selection of

a specific alternative. The predictive value of a 2-parameter “explorative sampler” quantification of these

assumptions is demonstrated.