Decision Making
Information Seeking Task
Also called: non-instrumental information seeking, noninstrumental information task, costly curiosity task, advance information task
Measure how often people pay points to learn a draw's result early when knowing cannot change it, at five chances of winning and three costs, scored as the share of costly rounds paid.
8-10 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Preview any test free after you sign up.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 40
- Evidence grade
- D
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
What it measures
Measures how much people pay to learn a result early when knowing cannot change it. In each round a draw may win 50 points, with a chance from 1 to 9 in 10, and the result shows after a wait. Participants can find it out at once, free or for points, without changing the result or the length of the round. The main score is the share of rounds with a cost on which they paid.
Constructs
- Value of information
- Curiosity
- Information seeking
- Anticipation
- Decision making under uncertainty
Research uses
- Anxious and obsessive-compulsive traits
- Curiosity and reward research
- Brain imaging of the value of information
- Within-study group comparison
How the paradigm works
The information seeking task measures how much people value knowing an outcome early when that knowledge cannot change it, known as non-instrumental information (Bennett, Bode, Brydevall, Warren and Murawski, 2016). Each round is a draw that may win 50 points, with a chance of 1, 3, 5, 7 or 9 in 10 shown as 10 boxes. The result is set before the round and shows when the round ends, 6 seconds after the choice, unless the participant chooses to find it out now. Finding out now is free or costs 2, 5 or 10 points, and it changes neither the result nor the length of the round. Every chance meets every cost twice, 40 rounds in all, in an order drawn for each session. These amounts were written for this test.
More about the paradigm
Two practice rounds, one where only Find out now is open and one where only Wait is, and a check question on what finding out now does come first. The participant starts with 100 points. The study decides what the points are worth, and the payment line says whether they are exchanged for money.
The main score is the share of rounds with a cost on which the participant paid to find out now. The share on free rounds, the share at each cost, an estimate of the points paid to know early and the share at each chance of winning are also given. People chose information that foretold a lottery's result on most free trials and paid for it on some costly ones, less often as the cost rose (Bennett and colleagues, 2016; Brydevall, Bennett, Murawski and Bode, 2018). In a card game, people found out early on about 80% of free rounds and on 9% to 25% of rounds with a cost (Rodriguez Cabrero, Zhu and Ludvig, 2019). Information seeking rose with the chance of a win and with the uncertainty of the result (Charpentier, Bromberg-Martin and Sharot, 2018). Preferences for free and for costly information were separate, and paying for costly information rose with anxious and obsessive-compulsive traits (Bennett, Sutcliffe, Tan, Smillie and Bode, 2021). Scores support research and do not diagnose.
Scores
- Paid for Information%
- Share of rounds with a cost of 2, 5 or 10 points on which the participant paid to find out the result now.
- Higher means more paying to know early
- Free Information Taken%
- Share of free rounds on which the participant chose to find out now.
- Higher means more seeking of free information
- Found Out Now, All Rounds%
- Share of all rounds on which the participant found out now.
- Higher means more information seeking
- Paid at 2 Points%
- Share of rounds costing 2 points on which the participant paid to find out now.
- Higher means more paying to know early
- Paid at 5 Points%
- Share of rounds costing 5 points on which the participant paid to find out now.
- Higher means more paying to know early
- Paid at 10 Points%
- Share of rounds costing 10 points on which the participant paid to find out now.
- Higher means more paying to know early
- Price Paid to Know Earlypoints
- Points the participant pays to know early, estimated from the share paid at each cost: the share at 2 points times 2, plus the share at 5 points times 3, plus the share at 10 points times 5, from 0 to 10.
- Higher means a higher price paid for early information
- Points Paidpoints
- Points spent on finding out now in the scored rounds.
- Informational
- Found Out Now, 1 in 10%
- Share of rounds with a 1 in 10 chance of winning on which the participant found out now.
- Higher means more information seeking
- Found Out Now, 3 in 10%
- Share of rounds with a 3 in 10 chance of winning on which the participant found out now.
- Higher means more information seeking
- Found Out Now, 5 in 10%
- Share of rounds with a 5 in 10 chance of winning on which the participant found out now.
- Higher means more information seeking
- Found Out Now, 7 in 10%
- Share of rounds with a 7 in 10 chance of winning on which the participant found out now.
- Higher means more information seeking
- Found Out Now, 9 in 10%
- Share of rounds with a 9 in 10 chance of winning on which the participant found out now.
- Higher means more information seeking
- Uncertainty Effectscore
- Share found out now at a 5 in 10 chance minus the mean share at 1 and 9 in 10, from -1 to 1.
- Positive means more seeking when the result is most uncertain
- Win Chance Effectscore
- Mean share found out now at 7 and 9 in 10 minus the mean share at 1 and 3 in 10, from -1 to 1.
- Positive means more seeking when a win is likely
- Choice Timems
- Median time from the draw appearing to the choice.
- Informational
- Early Clickscount
- Clicks under 100 ms after the buttons appeared, not taken as choices.
- Lower is better
- Choicescount
- Scored rounds played.
- Informational
- Check Correctflag
- 1 when the check question on what finding out now does was answered correctly, 0 when not.
- 1 supports interpretation
Use and evidence
40 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 150% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 270 of 395 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 2 |
| 2024 | 10 |
| 2023 | 9 |
| 2022 | 6 |
| 2021 | 13 |
| 2020 | 10 |
| 2019 | 3 |
| 2018 | 1 |
| 2017 | 1 |
| 2016 | 1 |
| 2015 | 2 |
| 2014 | 0 |
| 2013 | 0 |
| 2012 | 1 |
| 2011 | 0 |
| 2010 | 2 |
| 2009 | 1 |
| 2008 | 0 |
| 2007 | 2 |
| 2006 | 1 |
| 2005 | 0 |
| 2004 | 0 |
| 2003 | 1 |
| 2002 | 0 |
| 2001 | 0 |
| 2000 | 1 |
Use grade D
30 to 99 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade D
Little published measurement evidence found.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 0
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 1
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 0
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 2 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Draw
- Each round may win 50 points, with a chance of 1, 3, 5, 7 or 9 in 10, shown as 10 boxes. The result is drawn from the session's seed before the round.
- Choice
- Find out now or wait. Finding out now is free or costs 2, 5 or 10 points, taken whether the round wins or not.
- Wait
- The round ends 6 seconds after the choice (standard, 3 to 12) whichever way the participant chooses; without paying, the result shows then. The points are added at the end.
- Rounds
- Every chance meets every cost 2 times (standard, 2 to 3), 40 rounds, in cycles from the session's seed. The order of the two buttons is drawn for each session and kept.
- Practice
- Two rounds, the first with only Find out now open and the second with only Wait, then a check question on what finding out now does.
- Points
- The participant starts with 100 points. Clicks under 100 ms are not taken as choices.
The sources paid cents or points of their own and showed the result through cards revealed one at a time. This test uses its own prize, costs and chances and shows the result at once, so its shares are not on the sources' scale. The scores support research and do not diagnose.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: noninstrumental_information_round from the scored run, one per round. Finding out now and waiting are both accepted choices, so accuracy is not judged against chance and the same choice throughout is accepted. A run with fewer than half its planned rounds is invalid and any other shortfall is flagged. Choices under 200 ms on at least half the rounds invalidate. Paying to find out now on the rounds with a cost at least 25 percentage points more often than finding out on the free rounds, over at least 20 rounds, and a wrong answer to the check question are flagged.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. Always finding out and always waiting are both stable preferences, so repeated choices are not checked. A person who values knowing early takes it at least as often when it is free as when it costs points, so paying far more often than taking it free suggests the costs were not read. An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast. The wait is part of the procedure, so a percentile is withheld after a hidden tab.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Rounds of each combination | 2 | 2 to 3 |
| Wait (seconds) | 6 | 3 to 12 |
| Payment line | Hypothetical points (standard) | Hypothetical points (standard), The study pays for points |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Information Seeking Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Bennett et al., 2016), with the standard settings (rounds of each combination: 2; wait (seconds): 6; payment line: Hypothetical points). The main score was paid for information (share of rounds with a cost of 2, 5 or 10 points on which the participant paid to find out the result now).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Bennett, D., Bode, S., Brydevall, M., Warren, H., & Murawski, C. (2016). Intrinsic valuation of information in decision making under uncertainty. PLOS Computational Biology, 12(7), e1005020. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005020People paid for information that could not change a lottery's result, less often as the cost rose.
- Brydevall, M., Bennett, D., Murawski, C., & Bode, S. (2018). The neural encoding of information prediction errors during non-instrumental information seeking. Scientific Reports, 8, 6134. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-24566-xThe task with brain recordings of information and reward prediction errors.
- Charpentier, C. J., Bromberg-Martin, E. S., & Sharot, T. (2018). Valuation of knowledge and ignorance in mesolimbic reward circuitry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(31), E7255-E7264. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1800547115More information seeking when a win was likely and when the result was uncertain.
- Rodriguez Cabrero, J. A. M., Zhu, J.-Q., & Ludvig, E. A. (2019). Costly curiosity: People pay a price to resolve an uncertain gamble early. Behavioural Processes, 160, 20-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2018.12.015Finding out early on about 80% of free rounds and on 9% to 25% of rounds with a cost.
- Bennett, D., Sutcliffe, K., Tan, N. P. J., Smillie, L. D., & Bode, S. (2021). Anxious and obsessive-compulsive traits are independently associated with valuation of noninstrumental information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(4), 739-755. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000966Paying for costly information rose with anxious and obsessive-compulsive traits.
- Kobayashi, K., & Hsu, M. (2019). Common neural code for reward and information value. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(26), 13061-13066. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1820145116Information bought beyond its use for the decision, valued in the same brain regions as reward.
Source papers
- Bennett et al. (2016) and Brydevall et al. (2018): choices of costly information that cannot change a lottery's result. Rodriguez Cabrero, Zhu and Ludvig (2019): about 80% of free rounds and 9% to 25% of rounds with a cost. Charpentier, Bromberg-Martin and Sharot (2018): seeking by chance of winning. Bennett et al. (2021): anxious and obsessive-compulsive traits.Paradigm source, Adults
Questions
How long does the Information Seeking Task take?
About 8 to 10 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Paid for Information, Free Information Taken, Found Out Now, All Rounds, Paid at 2 Points, Paid at 5 Points, Paid at 10 Points, Price Paid to Know Early, Points Paid, Found Out Now, 1 in 10, Found Out Now, 3 in 10, Found Out Now, 5 in 10, Found Out Now, 7 in 10, Found Out Now, 9 in 10, Uncertainty Effect, Win Chance Effect, Choice Time, Early Clicks, Choices and Check Correct. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Information Seeking Task used in research?
40 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 150% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 270 of 395 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade D). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 2 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Information Seeking Task have?
In the published research, 0 papers report its test-retest reliability and 0 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade D in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Rounds of each combination (2 to 3), wait (seconds) (3 to 12) and payment line (Hypothetical points (standard), The study pays for points). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.