Value certainty and choice confidence are multidimensional constructs that guide decision-making

Abstract

The degree of certainty that decision-makers have about their evaluations of available choice alternatives and their confidence about selecting the subjectively best alternative are important factors that affect current and future value-based choices. Assessments of the alternatives in a given choice set are rarely unidimensional; their values are usually derived from a combination of multiple distinct attributes. For example, the taste, texture, quantity, and nutritional content of a snack food may all be considered when determining whether to consume it. We examined how certainty about the levels of individual attributes of an option relates to certainty about the overall value of that option as a whole and/or to confidence in having chosen the subjectively best available option. We found that certainty and confidence are derived from unequally weighted combinations of attribute certainties rather than simple, equal combinations of all sources of uncertainty. Attributes that matter more in determining choice outcomes also are weighted more in metacognitive evaluations of certainty or confidence. Moreover, we found that the process of deciding between two alternatives leads to refinements in both attribute estimations and the degree of certainty in those estimates. Attributes that are more important in determining choice outcomes are refined more during the decision process in terms of both estimates and certainty. Although certainty and confidence are typically treated as unidimensional, our results indicate that they, like value estimates, are subjective, multidimensional constructs.

Keywords: Metacognition; Multiattribute choice; Subjective value.

Fig. 1

Task illustration. Example of what participants saw on the screen during each experimental section

Fig. 2

Contribution of attribute estimates and certainty to overall value estimates and certainty. A) Pleasure and nutrition ratings have a predictive effect on overall value ratings. B) Pleasure certainty and nutrition certainty have a predictive effect on overall value certainty. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Significance stars: ***p < 0.001

Fig. 3

Explanatory power of attribute estimates and certainty on choice, response time, and confidence. Predictive effect of the sum of pleasure (sP), sum of nutrition (sN), difference in pleasure (dP), difference in nutrition (dN), sum of pleasure certainty (sPC), sum of nutrition certainty (sNC), difference in pleasure certainty (dPC), and difference in nutrition certainty (dNC) of the options on each trial on choice consistency (choosing the option with the higher overall value rating (A), response time (B), and choice confidence (C)). Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Significance stars: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

Fig. 4

Explanatory power of attribute estimates and certainty on choice, response time, and confidence. Predictive effect of the pleasure, nutrition, pleasure certainty, and nutrition certainty for the chosen option (P_c, N_c, PC_c, NC_c) and for the rejected option (P_r, N_r, PC_r, NC_r) on each trial on choice consistency (choosing the option with the higher overall value rating (A), response time (B), and choice confidence (C)). Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Significance stars: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Fig. 5

Contribution of attribute estimates and certainty to overall value estimates and certainty. A) Pleasure and nutrition ratings have a predictive effect on overall value ratings. B) Pleasure certainty and nutrition certainty have a predictive effect on overall value certainty. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Significance stars: ***p < 0.001

Fig. 6

fig Explanatory power of attribute estimates and certainty on choice, response time, and confidence. Predictive effect of the sum of pleasure (sP), sum of nutrition (sN), difference in pleasure (dP), difference in nutrition (dN), sum of pleasure certainty (sPC), sum of nutrition certainty (sNC), difference in pleasure certainty (dPC), and difference in nutrition certainty (dNC) of the options on each trial on choice consistency (choosing the option with the higher overall value rating; A), response time (B), and choice confidence (C). Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Significance stars: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

Fig. 7

Explanatory power of attribute estimates and certainty on choice, response time, and confidence. Predictive effect of the pleasure, nutrition, pleasure certainty, and nutrition certainty for the chosen option (P_c, N_c, PC_c, NC_c) and for the rejected option (P_r, N_r, PC_r, NC_r) on each trial on choice consistency (choosing the option with the higher overall value rating (A), response time (B), and choice confidence (C)). Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Significance stars: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

Fig. 8

Change in rating estimates and certainty before versus after choices. Rating estimates (top row; V = overall value, P = pleasure, N = nutrition) are highly correlated between first and second rating sessions (pre-choice V, P, and N all have large MFX regression coefficients for post-choice V, P, and N, respectively). The intercept terms have negative coefficients, showing that rejected options tended to decrease in rating estimate. The indicator variables isChosen have positive coefficients, showing that chosen options increased in rating relative to rejected options. Rating certainty (bottom row) is also highly correlated between first and second rating sessions. The positive intercept coefficients show that, in contrast to rating estimates, both chosen and rejected options gained in certainty, on average. The positive isChosen coefficients show that chosen options increased in certainty more than did rejected options. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Significance stars: *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001

Fig. 9

Explanatory power of attribute estimates and certainty, spreading of alternatives, and spreading of alternatives’ certainty on response time and confidence. Predictive effect of the difference in pleasure (dP), difference in nutrition (dN), difference in pleasure certainty (dPC), difference in nutrition certainty (dNC), spreading of alternatives with respect to pleasure (SoA_P), spreading of alternatives with respect to nutrition (SoA_N), spreading of alternatives’ certainty with respect to pleasure (SoAC_P), and spreading of alternatives’ certainty with respect to nutrition (SoAC_N) of the options on each trial on response time (A) and choice confidence (B). Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Significance stars: *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001