Instance-based learning: Integrating sampling and repeated decisions from experience.
Abstract
In decisions from experience, there are 2 experimental paradigms: sampling and repeated-choice. In the sampling paradigm, participants sample between 2 options as many times as they want (i.e., the stopping point is variable), observe the outcome with no real consequences each time, and finally select 1 of the 2 options that cause them to earn or lose money. In the repeated-choice paradigm, participants select 1 of the 2 options for a fixed number of times and receive immediate outcome feedback that affects their earnings. These 2 experimental paradigms have been studied independently, and different cognitive processes have often been assumed to take place in each, as represented in widely diverse computational models. We demonstrate that behavior in these 2 paradigms relies upon common cognitive processes proposed by the instance-based learning theory (IBLT; Gonzalez, Lerch, & Lebiere, 2003) and that the stopping point is the only difference between the 2 paradigms. A single cognitive model based on IBLT (with an added stopping point rule in the sampling paradigm) captures human choices and predicts the sequence of choice selections across both paradigms. We integrate the paradigms through quantitative model comparison, where IBLT outperforms the best models created for each paradigm separately. We discuss the implications for the psychology of decision making.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Individuals' choices rely on small samples of recalled instances from past interactions, an experience-dependent mechanism that is inherently noisy and biased.
“Research on Decisions from Experience (DfE) shows that individuals' choices rely on small samples of recalled instances from past interactions, an experiencedependent mechanism that is inherently noisy and biased (Gonzalez et al., 2003); (Gonzalez & Dutt, 2011); (Hertwig et al., 2004).”
From Open Challenges in Multi-Agent Security: Towards Secure Systems of Interacting AI Agents (2025) · cites this paper as Gonzalez & Dutt, 2011
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Reinforcement learning and episodic memory in humans and animals: an integrative framework
Gershman, S. J., & Daw, N. D. (2017) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033625 · Cited by 446 · see citing works
Deconstructing the human algorithms for exploration
Gershman, S. J. (2018) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2017.12.014 · Cited by 267 · see citing works
Open Challenges in Multi-Agent Security: Towards Secure Systems of Interacting AI Agents
de Witt, C. S., Krawiecka, K., Krawczuk, I., Hagag, B., Anderson, W. L., Belcak, P., Bucknall, B., Cai, X., Chopra, A., Cohen, D., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.02077 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gonzalez, C., & Dutt, V.
- Affiliations
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- ORCID
- Dutt, Varun
- Venue
- Psychological Review
- Published
- 2011
- Volume
- 118
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 523-551
- ISSN
- 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1471
- OpenAlex
- W2060256879
- Cited by
- 255
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 8.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (0624228)
- Defense Threat Reduction Agency (HDTRA1-09-1-0053)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Keywords
- decisions from experience, stopping points, computational cognitive model, model comparison, choice behavior, psychology of decision making
- MeSH terms
- Choice Behavior, Decision Making, Humans, Learning, Models, Psychological, Feedback, Psychological
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review