In two studies on mobile phone purchase decisions, we investigated consumers’ decision strategies with a newly developed process tracing tool called InterActive Process Tracing (IAPT). This tool is a combination of several process tracing techniques (Active Information Search, Mouselab, and retrospective verbal protocol). After repeatedly choosing one of four mobile phones, participants formalized their strategy so that it could be used to make choices for them. The choices made by the identified strategies correctly predicted the observed choices in 73% (Experiment 1) and 67% (Experiment 2) of the cases. Moreover, in Experiment 2 we directly compared Mouselab and eye tracking with respect to their impact on information search and strategy description. We found only minor differences between these two methods. We conclude that IAPT is a useful research tool to identify choice strategies, and that using eye tracking technology did not increase its validity beyond that gained with Mouselab.

In Longoni et al. (2019), we examine how algorithm aversion influences utilization of healthcare delivered by human and artificial intelligence providers. Pezzo and Beckstead’s (2020) commentary asks whether resistance to medical AI takes the form of a noncompensatory decision strategy, in which a single attribute determines provider choice, or whether resistance to medical AI is one of several attributes considered in a compensatory decision strategy. We clarify that our paper both claims and finds that, all else equal, resistance to medical AI is one of several attributes (e.g., cost and performance) influencing healthcare utilization decisions. In other words, resistance to medical AI is a consequential input to compensatory decisions regarding healthcare utilization and provider choice decisions, not a noncompensatory decision strategy. People do not always reject healthcare provided by AI, and our article makes no claim that they do.

While it is well established that the search for information after a decision is biased toward supporting that decision, the case of preference-supporting search before the decision remains open. Three studies of consumer choices consistently found a complete absence of a pre-choice bias toward searching for preference-supporting information. The absence of this confirming search bias occurred for products that were both hedonic and utilitarian, both expensive and inexpensive, and both high and low in expected brand loyalty. Experiment 3 also verified the presence of the expected post-choice search bias to support the chosen alternative. Therefore the absence of a pre-choice search bias in all three studies was not likely to be due to our using a method that was so insensitive that a search bias would not be observed under any circumstances. In addition to the absence of an effect of prior preferences on information selection, subjects’ self-reported search strategies exhibited a clear tendency toward a balance of positive and negative information. Across the three studies, we also tested for the presence of a preference-supporting bias in the evaluation of the information acquired in the search process. This evaluation bias was found both pre- and post-choice.

Drafting is a competitive task in which a set of decision makers choose from a set of resources sequentially, with each resource becoming unavailable once selected. How people make these choices raises basic questions about human decision making, including people’s sensitivity to the statistical regularities of the resource environment, their ability to reason about the behavior of their competitors, and their ability to execute and adapt sophisticated strategies in dynamic situations involving uncertainty. Sports provides one real-world example of drafting behavior, in which a set of teams draft players from an available pool in a well-regulated way. Fantasy sport competitions provide potentially large data sets of drafting behavior. We study fantasy football drafting behavior from the 2017 National Football League (NFL) season based on 1350 leagues hosted by the http://sleeper.app platform. We find people are sensitive to some important environmental regularities in the order in which they draft players, but also present evidence that they use a more narrow range of strategies than is likely optimal in terms of team composition. We find little to no evidence for the use of the complicated but well-documented strategy known as handcuffing, and no evidence of irrational influence from individual-level biases for different NFL teams. We do, however, identify a set of circumstances for which there is clear evidence that people’s choices are strongly influenced by the immediately preceding choice made by a competitor.