RESUMEN
Many decisions we face daily entail deliberation about how to coordinate resources shared between multiple, competing goals. When time permits, people appear to approach these goal prioritization problems by analytically considering all goal-relevant information to arrive at a prioritization decision. However, it is not yet clear if this normative strategy extends to situations characterized by resource constraints such as when deliberation time is scarce or cognitive load is high. We evaluated the questions of how limited deliberation time and cognitive load affect goal prioritization decisions across a series of experiments using a gamified experimental task, which required participants to make a series of interdependent goal prioritization decisions. We fit several candidate models to experimental data to identify decision strategy adaptations at the individual subject-level. Results indicated that participants tended to opt for a simple heuristic strategy when cognitive resources were constrained rather than making a general tradeoff between speed and accuracy (e.g., the type of tradeoff that would be predicted by evidence accumulation models). The most common heuristic strategy involved disproportionately weighing information about goal deadlines compared to other goal-relevant information such as the goal's difficulty and the goal's subjective value.