Decision-making: In the end, what we know often counts

Suppose a seven-day vacation is coming to an end, there are only two days left to fill with program.

What are the plans for these days?

Do you visit the monument on the outskirts of the city that is still on the to-do list – or do you prefer to pay a second visit to the cathedral in the center?

The answer should be clear: If you are ever traveling and far away from your familiar homeland, then you should still use the time and see something new.

Or?

People have an intrinsic urge for something new and a certain amount of joy in discovery is innate in everyone.

If we encounter something unexpected, our brain activity is immediately increased, our attention increases.

Studies also show that positive feelings are triggered when people have a new realization or a spontaneous insight into a problem - this is also known as the "aha" or "eureka moment".

Many are moderately adventurous

However, too much of the unknown can be overwhelming.

Based on his studies, the experimental psychologist Wilhelm Wundt therefore postulated that people prefer a middle ground between the familiar and the new.

He illustrated this with what is now known as the "Wundt curve": As with the classic Gaussian curve of normal distribution, there are a few people who are comfortable with either little that is new or an excess of the unknown.

But the general public likes it moderately adventurous.

Now researchers from the University of Chicago report new insights into these preferences: They included time as a variable for the preference of the known versus the unknown.

The study, which was published in the journal "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology", consists of eight experiments with a total of almost 6000 study participants.

In the first study, the participants had to choose in different scenarios whether they would rather experience something familiar or something new - for example, would rather visit a new or familiar city, or read a new book or a book they already knew.

Half of the participants were told that it was their last opportunity to travel or read a book.

Researchers found that this constraint on time horizons led participants to choose the known, familiar experience.

These results were confirmed in further studies, in which a wide variety of methods were used.

That seems counterintuitive: if there is little time left to experience something, then it seems more rational to try something out quickly.

The fact that the study results prove the opposite is explained by the scientists on the one hand by saying that what is known is of course the sure way to achieving a positive experience.

In addition, it could play a role that the known experiences are additionally linked to an - often positive - personal meaning or memory.

An advantage that, of course, no new experience can boast of in this form.