Scientists identify a new glitch in human thinking

Researchers find 'doubling-back aversion,' showing reluctance to efficient choices needing retracing steps.

: Researchers at UC Berkeley identified a cognitive bias termed 'doubling-back aversion,' which dissuades people from choosing more efficient paths requiring backtracking. Through experiments involving over 2,500 adults, participants consistently avoided reversing their progress even when doing so was the more efficient option. This bias, distinct yet related to the sunk cost fallacy, demonstrates an aversion to perceiving past efforts as wasted, leading to less efficient decision-making. Further research is needed to fully understand the scenarios where this bias occurs most frequently.

Scientists at the University of California, Berkeley have recently introduced a new term to describe a common cognitive bias known as the 'doubling-back aversion.' This phenomenon is characterized by people's reluctance to choose more efficient solutions or pathways if those solutions necessitate retracing their steps. Researchers theorize that this bias springs from an aversion to feeling that past efforts were wasted, thereby prompting individuals to pursue less efficient means. According to a paper published in Psychological Science, the researchers conducted several experiments involving more than 2,500 adults to demonstrate this cognitive quirk.

To investigate this bias, the researchers employed a series of tests that featured both virtual tasks and verbal exercises. One experiment involved participants walking along various paths in a virtual reality setting, while another asked them to recite as many words beginning with a specified letter as possible. Despite being shown that the amount of work required was the same regardless of the path or letter chosen, many participants chose less efficient paths when moving forward rather than backtracking.

An illuminating example cited by the researchers involved flight paths. They described a scenario in which a delayed traveler could return home faster if willing to take a complicated route that backtracked to a previous destination. Despite knowing that both options saved the same amount of time, participants were more likely to reject routes requiring them to return to an earlier location. This behavior illustrates how 'doubling-back aversion' differs from similar biases like the status quo bias and the sunk cost fallacy, but nonetheless influences decision-making in similar ways.

Lead author Kristine Cho, a behavioral marketing PhD student at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business, expressed surprise at the consistency of the findings, noting a significant difference in participants' willingness to alter course when changes were framed as continuation versus starting anew. Cho's commentary highlights the importance of how choices are presented and how that presentation affects decision outcomes.

While the research provides compelling evidence of this cognitive bias, Cho and her team acknowledge that more research is needed to determine how pervasive 'doubling-back aversion' is in everyday scenarios. Further examination may explore whether this aversion is more likely to occur in specific circumstances and how individuals can counteract these biases to make better decisions. The findings offer a useful consideration for professionals in psychology, behavioral economics, and related fields who strive to understand the intricacies of human decision-making.

Sources: Gizmodo, Psychological Science

Cognitive BiasesPsychologyResearch