Noise has always been seen as a challenge in workplaces, but its impact on decision-making—especially in experience-based judgments—is not yet fully understood. This article looks at two research studies that explore how noise affects decision-making and the practical implications of their findings.
Why room acoustics matter in decision making
Efficient decision-making is essential in workplace environments, classrooms, and healthcare facilities. However, noise, often influenced by poor room acoustics, can disrupt mental processes and attention. Unlike descriptive decisions based on presented information, experience-based decision-making requires individuals to learn and adapt through repeated experiences—a process vulnerable to auditory interference.
What is experience-based decision making?
Experience-based decision-making is different from decisions made using provided information. Instead, it relies on learning through real-time feedback and repeated experiences. This process reflects real-life situations where people recognize patterns and adjust their choices over time.
Previous research on noise and cognitive performance
Noise’s impact on cognitive performance is well-documented, particularly on attention, memory, and problem-solving. However, less is known about how noise affects decision-making processes based on lived experiences, such as detecting subtle changes or learning trends over time.
Method: investigating the influence of noise
Participants: A total of 307 college students, aged 18–24, took part in decision-making tasks across two experimental studies.
Task design: Experiments were designed to simulate real-life decision-making scenarios while controlling external factors to isolate the effects of noise. Participants completed tasks under two conditions:
- Noisy environments: white noise at 64-66 dB, simulating conditions such as noisy open-plan office or busy informal meeting zone.
- Quiet environments (no noise).
Participants completed 100 rounds of decision-making, choosing between two options on each trial. The goal was to earn as many points as possible by making thoughtful choices across these trials.
While the two options looked identical on the screen, they differed in risk and rewards:
- One option was low-risk but had a smaller payoff
- The other option was higher-risk but with a bigger payoff
Although the high-reward option was more advantageous in the long run, it carried more risk, and participants were less likely to pick it initially. Humans are naturally cautious about risky choices, often needing repeated experience to recognize patterns and make rational decisions that maximize rewards.
The studies provided participants with feedback after each choice, showing the outcome of their decision. This allowed them to learn from experience and adjust their strategy over time, offering researchers insights into how individuals manage risk and rewards during decision-making.
Measures: The performance was measured by how often participants selected the high-expected-value (high-EV) option—the best possible choice in each situation.
Participants saw two options on the screen and received one of three types of information about them:
- No-Suggestion Condition: Participants received no hints or information about the potential payoffs for either option. They had to rely entirely on trial-and-error to make their decisions.
- Accurate Information Condition: Participants were given correct details about the payoffs of each option. For example, they were accurately informed that the high-EV (Expected Value) option had an 80% chance of earning 5 points and a 20% chance of earning 0 points. This made it the better choice over the long term because its average payoff (Expected Value) was higher.
- Misleading Information Condition: The information given about the high-EV option was deliberately incorrect
Changes over time: Decisions were analyzed over time to observe changes in performance. In the second study, emotional changes were also monitored through pre- and post-task self-assessments.
Results: the impact of noise on decision-making
Researchers analyzed how noise, the type of information provided, and time influenced decision-making, focusing on the percentage of participants who chose the better option, known as the high-EV option (higher expected value). The high-EV option offered better long-term rewards despite being riskier.
General observations:
- Over time, participants’ decision-making improved. Across all conditions without noise, participants got better at selecting the high-EV option as they gained more experience.
- The type of information participants received also made a difference: those who received no guidance or accurate guidance performed significantly better compared to participants who received misleading guidance.
- Time helped improve performance generally, but misleading information still held participants back.
The effect of noise
Noise had a clear impact:
- Participants in the noisy environment were more likely to pick the low-EV option, which was safer but offered smaller rewards in the long term.
- In noisy conditions participants were 10-15% less likely to choose high expected value options. This supported the idea that noise disrupts decision-making by increasing reliance on less optimal, risk-averse choices.
- The effect of noise depended on the type of information, with minimal impact when participants received correct or no information
- Noise drastically affected performance for participants who received incorrect information, further steering them away from choosing the better high-EV option
- The disruptive effects of noise became worse with time: At first, participants in noisy and quiet environments performed similarly. However, as they completed more trials, participants in the noisy environment performed significantly worse than those in quiet settings. This suggests that noise hindered the ability to learn and adapt through experience.
Limitations and future directions
While this research focused on moderate noise and young adult participants, broader studies are needed. Future research could explore:
- Variations in noise intensity and type.
- Task-specific impacts of noise.
- Vulnerability differences across age groups and professions.
- Real-world scenarios using tools like EEG or fMRI to understand neural responses.
Takeaways
These studies showed that noise significantly impacts decision-making, especially when participants are given misleading information. Over time, the combination of noise and bad guidance amplifies choices that give poorer results.
Both studies show that moderate noise can affect experience-based decision-making in young adults, even though they are generally thought to handle distractions like noise well.
Noise poses a significant challenge to experience-based decision-making, especially when room acoustics is poor. By understanding its effects, we can create spaces that minimize distractions and improve cognitive performance. This is crucial in public buildings, offices, healthcare facilities, hotels with work and meeting areas, as well as schools and universities—anywhere people need to think clearly and make decisions.
Source: Sheng, Y.; Dong, D.; He, G.; Zhang, J. How Noise Can Influence Experience-Based Decision-Making under Different Types of the Provided Information.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10445.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610445
