Preprint · Jul 7, 2026
Putting Attentional Control to a Normative Test
By Grätz D, Fröber K, Mayr U
Attentional control deficits are often invoked to explain individual or aging-related differences in how people allocate attention. Yet what constitutes optimal attentional allocation, and how closely human behavior approximates it, remains poorly understood without a normative analysis of the allocation space. We introduce a novel incentive-compatible attentional allocation paradigm that is amenable to normative analysis. On each trial, participants either maximize piece-rate earnings by focusing on a primary task or, at an opportunity cost to earnings, check cues indicating which of two primary tasks is currently rewarded. Normative modeling of value/allocation functions revealed wide variability in optimal strategies across decision contexts, but also relatively flat utility surfaces, implying weak normative constraints. Empirically, participants were less sensitive to most decision variables than the model predicted while showing pronounced individual and aging-related differences (Experiment 1). However, the opportunity cost of orienting, relative to the baseline response rate, emerged as a key normative determinant of allocation differences across individuals and age groups. Indeed, individual and age differences were largely explained by variations in relative orienting costs: because older adults were slower on the primary task but not in cue checking per se, their effective cue-checking costs were smaller, leading to more frequent cue use. In preregistered Experiments 2–4, we confirmed the causal nature of the effects of relative orienting costs. We argue that a normative framework clarifies when attentional differences reflect adaptive, cost-sensitive optimization rather than control deficits, and outline testable implications for further research on how people allocate attention.