How Confidence Influences Information Search Strategies

不确定性是在真实的世界中做出决策时的核心挑战。为了减少不确定性，个人积极收集额外的信息，直到可以做出决定，在寻求进一步证据的成本和更有可能做出最佳决策的好处之间进行权衡。然而，人们在信息选择中表现出系统性的确认偏差。也就是说，人类倾向于寻找，解释和回忆有利于他们的信仰或支持个人预先存在的假设的信息。通过促成过度自信，这种确认偏差会导致推理中的系统性错误，甚至在相反证据的情况下也会坚持信念，以及态度极化。在我的博士研究中，我想调查认知偏差，如确认和过度自信对不确定环境中决策的影响。当我们不那么自信的时候，我们是更倾向于寻找有利于我们最初立场的信息来获得更多的信心，还是更低的信心水平使我们对可能不一致的信息更加开放和宽容？深入了解我们的元态度如何影响我们对不同意见的容忍度，可以为干预措施提供信息，以抵消态度极化和信念坚持等现象。合作要求人们容忍相反的意见，并愿意在态度和信仰上受到影响。可能的发言可设法提供关于这一专题本身的补充资料。然而，考虑到元态度可能会影响信息的摄入，在试图改变观点时，首先针对元层面可能是有用的。在这一研究基础上，可以进一步研究确认偏差在多大程度上服务于一个目标，以及是否可以通过改变人们的目标来改变这种偏差。此外，将个体在信息收集方面的偏见与信念更新方面的偏见分离开来将是有趣的。即使当信息抽样是有偏见的，信念更新仍然可能发生规范。另一个有趣的途径是研究如何整合来自不同来源的不一致证据。对相互冲突的信息的厌恶可能会导致人们避免获得进一步的建议，即使这可能不是收集信息以减少不确定性的最佳策略。探索信息寻求和决策中的自信与认知偏差的关系为有趣的研究提供了很多空间。研究结果可能有助于开发决策辅助工具，补充人工智能研究，构建干预措施以对抗态度两极分化，或为社会政策提供信息

Uncertainty is a core challenge when making decisions in the real world. To reduce uncertainty, individuals actively gather additional information until a decision can be made, trading off betweenthe cost of seeking further evidence and the benefit of being more likely to make the optimal decision. However, it has repeatedly been shown that people exhibit a systematic confirmationbias in information selection. That is, humans tend to seek, interpret, and recall information that favour their beliefs or support personal pre-existing hypotheses. Through contributing tooverconfidence, this confirmation bias can lead to systematic errors in reasoning, belief perseverance even in light of contrary evidence, and attitude polarization. In my doctoral research,I would like to investigate the influences of cognitive biases such as confirmation and overconfidence on decision-making in uncertain environments. When we are less confident, arewe even more prone to seeking information favouring our initial position to gain more confidence, or do lower levels of confidence make us more open and tolerant towards potentially disagreeinginformation?Gaining an advanced understanding of how our meta-attitudes influence our tolerance towards divergent opinions could inform interventions to counteract phenomena like attitude polarizationand belief perseverance. Cooperation requires that people are tolerant towards opposing opinions and open to be influenced in their attitudes and beliefs. Possible interventions could seek toprovide additional information on the topic as such. However, considering that meta-attitudes might influence the intake of information, instead targeting the meta-level first might be usefulwhen trying to bring about changes in opinions. Building on this line of research, it could further be investigated to what extend the confirmation bias serves a goal, and whether by changingpeople's goal, this bias can be changed. Furthermore, it would be intriguing to dissociate individuals' biases in information gathering from biases in belief updating. Even when informationsampling is biased, belief updating may still occur normatively. Another interesting avenue to pursue would be to study the integration of inconsistent evidence from different sources. Aversiontowards conflicting information may lead people to refrain from getting further advice even though this might not be an optimal strategy in gathering information to reduce uncertainty. Exploring therelation of confidence to cognitive biases in information seeking and decision-making offers lots of scope for intriguing research. Findings may be useful in developing decision-aids,complementing research on artificial intelligence, constructing interventions to counteract attitude polarization, or informing social policies