  Under the Bayesian brain hypothesis, behavioural variations can be attributed
to different priors over generative model parameters. This provides a formal
explanation for why individuals exhibit inconsistent behavioural preferences
when confronted with similar choices. For example, greedy preferences are a
consequence of confident (or precise) beliefs over certain outcomes. Here, we
offer an alternative account of behavioural variability using R\'enyi
divergences and their associated variational bounds. R\'enyi bounds are
analogous to the variational free energy (or evidence lower bound) and can be
derived under the same assumptions. Importantly, these bounds provide a formal
way to establish behavioural differences through an $\alpha$ parameter, given
fixed priors. This rests on changes in $\alpha$ that alter the bound (on a
continuous scale), inducing different posterior estimates and consequent
variations in behaviour. Thus, it looks as if individuals have different
priors, and have reached different conclusions. More specifically, $\alpha \to
0^{+}$ optimisation leads to mass-covering variational estimates and increased
variability in choice behaviour. Furthermore, $\alpha \to + \infty$
optimisation leads to mass-seeking variational posteriors and greedy
preferences. We exemplify this formulation through simulations of the
multi-armed bandit task. We note that these $\alpha$ parameterisations may be
especially relevant, i.e., shape preferences, when the true posterior is not in
the same family of distributions as the assumed (simpler) approximate density,
which may be the case in many real-world scenarios. The ensuing departure from
vanilla variational inference provides a potentially useful explanation for
differences in behavioural preferences of biological (or artificial) agents
under the assumption that the brain performs variational Bayesian inference.
