The subjects are rational IMO. The “experimenters” have told them that heads are more likely. It’s not like they have seen that for themselves. Exploring tails a few times won’t cost much.
Also, being predictable is usually bad in a multi-agent environment. It’s possibly not bad in this specific environment, but using cheap heuristics that mostly work is not the height of irrationality.
You don’t need to call tails to explore whether tails is possible, though—the information gain of a coin flip is the same whether you call heads or tails
Unless the mechanics of the coin is dependent on you calling it tails.
I am not saying this behavior is rational in isolation, but in decisions that matter, it’s a good heuristic. The real-world is very complex and humans are in general very stupid. Empirical testing pays better than a priori reasoning.
The subjects are rational IMO. The “experimenters” have told them that heads are more likely. It’s not like they have seen that for themselves. Exploring tails a few times won’t cost much.
Also, being predictable is usually bad in a multi-agent environment. It’s possibly not bad in this specific environment, but using cheap heuristics that mostly work is not the height of irrationality.
You don’t need to call tails to explore whether tails is possible, though—the information gain of a coin flip is the same whether you call heads or tails
Unless the mechanics of the coin is dependent on you calling it tails.
I am not saying this behavior is rational in isolation, but in decisions that matter, it’s a good heuristic. The real-world is very complex and humans are in general very stupid. Empirical testing pays better than a priori reasoning.