All adaptive organisms face the fundamental tradeoff between pursuing a known reward (exploitation) and sampling lesser-known options in search of something better (exploration). Theory suggests at least two strategies for solving this dilemma: a directed strategy in which choices are explicitly biased toward information seeking, and a random strategy in which decision noise leads to exploration by chance. In this work we investigated the extent to which humans use these two strategies. In our “Horizon task,” participants made explore– exploit decisions in two contexts that differed in the number of choices that they would make in the future (the time horizon). Participants were allowed to make either a single choice in each game (horizon 1), or 6 sequential choices (horizon 6), giving them more opportunity to explore. By modeling the behavior in these two conditions, we were able to measure exploration-related changes in decision making and quantify the contributions of the two strategies to behavior. We found that participants were more information seeking and had higher decision noise with the longer horizon, suggesting that humans use both strategies to solve the exploration– exploitation dilemma. We thus conclude that both information seeking and choice variability can be controlled and put to use in the service of exploration.

We review research that measures time preferences—i.e., preferences over intertemporal trade—offs. We distinguish between studies using financial flows, which we call “money earlier or later” (MEL) decisions, and studies that use time-dated consumption/effort. Under different structural models, we show how to translate what MEL experiments directly measure (required rates of return for financial flows) into a discount function over utils. We summarize empirical regularities found in MEL studies and the predictive power of those studies. We explain why MEL choices are driven in part by some factors that are distinct from underlying time preferences. (JEL C61, D15)

Heuristic models have been proposed for many domains of choice. We compare heuristic models of intertemporal choice, which can account for many of the known intertemporal choice anomalies, to discounting models. We conduct an out-of-sample, cross-validated comparison of intertemporal choice models. Heuristic models outperform traditional utility discounting models, including models of exponential and hyperbolic discounting. The best performing models predict choices by using a weighted average of absolute differences and relative (percentage) differences of the attributes of the goods in a choice set. We conclude that heuristic models explain time-money tradeoff choices in experiments better than utility discounting models.

Objective Evaluate innovative, evidence-based approaches to organizational/supportive environmental interventions aimed at reducing the prevalence of obesity among Dow employees after two years of implementation. Methods A quasi-experimental study design compared outcomes for two levels of intervention intensity to a control group. Propensity scores were used to weight baseline differences between intervention and control subjects. Difference-in-differences methods and multi-level modeling were used to control for individual and site-level confounders. Results Intervention participants maintained their weight and BMI while control participants gained 1.3 pounds and increased their BMI values by 0.2 over two years. Significant differences in blood pressure and cholesterol values were observed when comparing intervention employees to controls. At higher intensity sites, improvements were more pronounced. Conclusions Environmental interventions at the workplace can support weight management and risk reduction after two years.