Goals Shape Dynamics of Attention and Selection for Value‐Based Decision‐Making

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Topics in Cognitive Science
Published
2026-07-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.70076
Primary Topic
Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Goals Shape Dynamics of Attention and Selection for Value‐Based Decision‐Making

Chih-Chung Ting, Sebastian Gluth, Romy Frömer, A Shenhav
Topics in Cognitive Science
Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
article

Goals Shape Dynamics of Attention and Selection for Value‐Based Decision‐Making

Chih-Chung Ting, Sebastian Gluth, Romy Frömer, A Shenhav
article en

Abstract

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.

Topics in Cognitive Science
Birmingham City University (GB), Allen Institute for Brain Science (US), Universität Hamburg (DE), Neurosciences Institute (US), Brown University (US), Institut des Sciences Cognitives (FR), HAW Hamburg (DE), Hologic (Germany) (DE), University of California, Berkeley (US)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.