Differential impacts of healthy cognitive aging on directed and random exploration.

IF 3.7 1区 心理学 Q1 GERONTOLOGY
Jack-Morgan Mizell, Siyu Wang, Alec Frisvold, Lily Alvarado, Alex Farrell-Skupny, Waitsang Keung, Caroline E Phelps, Mark H Sundman, Mary-Kathryn Franchetti, Ying-Hui Chou, Gene E Alexander, Robert C Wilson
{"title":"Differential impacts of healthy cognitive aging on directed and random exploration.","authors":"Jack-Morgan Mizell, Siyu Wang, Alec Frisvold, Lily Alvarado, Alex Farrell-Skupny, Waitsang Keung, Caroline E Phelps, Mark H Sundman, Mary-Kathryn Franchetti, Ying-Hui Chou, Gene E Alexander, Robert C Wilson","doi":"10.1037/pag0000791","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Deciding whether to explore unknown opportunities or exploit well-known options is a ubiquitous part of our everyday lives. Extensive work in college students suggests that young people make explore-exploit decisions using a mixture of information seeking and random behavioral variability. Whether, and to what extent, older adults use the same strategies is unknown. To address this question, 51 older adults (ages 65-74) and 32 younger adults (ages 18-25) completed the Horizon Task, a gambling task that quantifies information seeking and behavioral variability as well as how these strategies are controlled for the purposes of exploration. Qualitatively, we found that older adults performed similar to younger adults on this task, increasing both their information seeking and behavioral variability when it was adaptive to explore. Quantitively, however, there were substantial differences between the age groups, with older adults showing less information seeking overall and less reliance on variability as a means to explore. In addition, we found a subset of approximately 26% of older adults whose information seeking was close to zero, avoiding informative options even when they were clearly the better choice. Unsurprisingly, these \"information avoiders\" performed worse on the task. In contrast, task performance in the remaining \"information seeking\" older adults was comparable to that of younger adults suggesting that age-related differences in explore-exploit decision making may be adaptive except when they are taken to extremes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48426,"journal":{"name":"Psychology and Aging","volume":"39 1","pages":"88-101"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10871551/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology and Aging","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000791","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Deciding whether to explore unknown opportunities or exploit well-known options is a ubiquitous part of our everyday lives. Extensive work in college students suggests that young people make explore-exploit decisions using a mixture of information seeking and random behavioral variability. Whether, and to what extent, older adults use the same strategies is unknown. To address this question, 51 older adults (ages 65-74) and 32 younger adults (ages 18-25) completed the Horizon Task, a gambling task that quantifies information seeking and behavioral variability as well as how these strategies are controlled for the purposes of exploration. Qualitatively, we found that older adults performed similar to younger adults on this task, increasing both their information seeking and behavioral variability when it was adaptive to explore. Quantitively, however, there were substantial differences between the age groups, with older adults showing less information seeking overall and less reliance on variability as a means to explore. In addition, we found a subset of approximately 26% of older adults whose information seeking was close to zero, avoiding informative options even when they were clearly the better choice. Unsurprisingly, these "information avoiders" performed worse on the task. In contrast, task performance in the remaining "information seeking" older adults was comparable to that of younger adults suggesting that age-related differences in explore-exploit decision making may be adaptive except when they are taken to extremes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

健康认知老化对定向探索和随机探索的不同影响。
决定是探索未知的机会还是利用众所周知的选择是我们日常生活中无处不在的一部分。针对大学生的大量研究表明,年轻人在做出探索-利用决策时,会混合使用信息搜寻和随机行为变异。至于老年人是否以及在多大程度上使用同样的策略,我们还不得而知。为了解决这个问题,51 名老年人(65-74 岁)和 32 名年轻人(18-25 岁)完成了地平线任务,这是一项赌博任务,可以量化信息寻求和行为变异以及如何控制这些策略以达到探索的目的。我们发现,老年人在这项任务中的表现与年轻人相似,在适应探索的情况下,他们的信息搜寻和行为变异性都会增加。然而,从数量上看,两个年龄组之间存在着很大的差异,老年人在整体上表现出较少的信息寻求,也较少依赖变异性作为探索的手段。此外,我们还发现约有 26% 的老年人对信息的寻求接近于零,即使信息选项明显是更好的选择,他们也会回避。毫不奇怪,这些 "信息回避者 "在任务中的表现更差。相比之下,其余 "寻求信息 "的老年人在任务中的表现与年轻人相当,这表明与年龄有关的探索-利用决策差异可能是适应性的,除非它们被推向极端。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
10.80%
发文量
97
期刊介绍: Psychology and Aging publishes original articles on adult development and aging. Such original articles include reports of research that may be applied, biobehavioral, clinical, educational, experimental (laboratory, field, or naturalistic studies), methodological, or psychosocial. Although the emphasis is on original research investigations, occasional theoretical analyses of research issues, practical clinical problems, or policy may appear, as well as critical reviews of a content area in adult development and aging. Clinical case studies that have theoretical significance are also appropriate. Brief reports are acceptable with the author"s agreement not to submit a full report to another journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信