Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

According to research studying the processes underlying decisions, a two-channel mechanism connects attention and choices: top-down and bottom-up processes. To identify the magnitude of each channel, we exogenously varied information intake by systematically interrupting participants’ decision processes in Study 1 (N = 116). Results showed that participants were more likely to choose a predetermined target option. Because selection effects limited the interpretation of the results, we used a sequential-presentation paradigm in Study 2 (preregistered, N = 100). To partial out bottom-up effects of attention on choices, in particular, we presented alternatives by mirroring the gaze patterns of autonomous decision makers. Results revealed that final fixations successfully predicted choices when experimentally manipulated (bottom up). Specifically, up to 11.32% of the link between attention and choices is driven by exogenously guided attention (1.19% change in choices overall), while the remaining variance is explained by top-down preference formation.

Keywords

bottom up top down eye tracking social preferences moral decision making open data open materials preregistered

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alger

Weibull

J. W.

(2013). Homo moralis—Preference evolution under incomplete information and assortative matching. Econometrica, 81, 2269–2302.

Armel

K. C.

Beaumel

Rangel

(2008). Biasing simple choices by manipulating relative visual attention. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 396–403.

Ashby

N. J.

Walasek

Glöckner

(2015). The effect of consumer ratings and attentional allocation on product valuations. Judgment and Decision Making, 10, 172–184.

Ashton

M. C.

Lee

(2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 340–345. doi:10.1080/00223890902935878

Audacity Team. (2018). Audacity [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://www.audacityteam.org/

Baddeley

A. D.

Hitch

(1993). The recency effect: Implicit learning with explicit retrieval? Memory & Cognition, 21, 146–155.

Balliet

Parks

Joireman

(2009). Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12, 533–547. doi:10.1177/1368430209105040

Carlsson

Johansson-Stenman

Nam

P. K.

(2014). Social preferences are stable over long periods of time. Journal of Public Economics, 117, 104–114. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.05.009

Fehr

Schmidt

K. M.

(1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868.

10.

Fiedler

Glöckner

(2012). The dynamics of decision making in risky choice: An eye-tracking analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, Article 335. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00335

11.

Fiedler

Glöckner

Nicklisch

Dickert

(2013). Social value orientation and information search in social dilemmas: An eye-tracking analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 272–284. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.07.002

12.

Gerbasi

M. E.

Prentice

D. A.

(2013). The Self- and Other-Interest Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 495–514. doi:10.1037/a0033483

13.

Greiner

(2015). Subject pool recruitment procedures: Organizing experiments with ORSEE. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 1, 114–125. doi:10.1007/s40881-015-0004-4

14.

Haley

K. J.

Fessler

D. M. T.

(2005). Nobody’s watching? Subtle cues affect generosity in an anonymous economic game. Evolution & Human Behavior, 26, 245–256. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.01.002

15.

Harsanyi

J. C.

(1977). Morality and the theory of rational behavior. Social Research, 44, 623–656.

16.

Iliev

Sachdeva

Bartels

D. M.

Joseph

Suzuki

Medin

D. L.

(2009). Attending to moral values. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 50, 169–192. doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(08)00405-2

17.

Knez

M. J.

Camerer

C. F.

(1995). Outside options and social comparison in three-player ultimatum game experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 65–94.

18.

Krajbich

Armel

Rangel

(2010). Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice. Nature Neuroscience, 13, 1292–1298. doi:10.1038/nn.2635

19.

Krajbich

Smith

S. M.

(2015). Modeling eye movements and response times in consumer choice. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, 13(1), 55–72. doi:10.1515/jafio-2015-0016

20.

Liebrand

W. B.

McClintock

C. G.

(1988). The ring measure of social values: A computerized procedure for assessing individual differences in information processing and social value orientation. European Journal of Personality, 2, 217–230.

21.

Mantonakis

Rodero

Lesschaeve

Hastie

(2009). Order in choice: Effects of serial position on preferences. Psychological Science, 20, 1309–1312.

22.

Milosavljevic

Navalpakkam

Koch

Rangel

(2012). Relative visual saliency differences induce sizable bias in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 67–74. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.10.002

23.

Neurobehavioral Systems. (2018). Presentation [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://www.neurobs.com/

24.

Newell

B. R.

Le Pelley

M. E.

(2018). Perceptual but not complex moral judgments can be biased by exploiting the dynamics of eye-gaze. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147, 409–417. doi:10.1037/xge0000386

25.

Orquin

J. L.

Mueller Loose

(2013). Attention and choice: A review on eye movements in decision making. Acta Psychologica, 144, 190–206. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.06.003

26.

Pärnamets

Johansson

Hall

Balkenius

Spivey

M. J.

Richardson

D. C.

(2015). Biasing moral decisions by exploiting the dynamics of eye gaze. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 112, 4170–4175. doi:10.1073/pnas.1415250112

27.

Penner

L. A.

Fritzsche

B. A.

Craiger

J. P.

Freifeld

T. R.

(1995). Measuring the prosocial personality. Advances in Personality Assessment, 10, 147–163.

28.

Rushton

J. P.

Chrisjohn

R. D.

Fekken

G. C.

(1981). The altruistic personality and the Self-Report Altruism Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 293–302.

29.

Sharot

Velasquez

C. M.

Dolan

R. J.

(2010). Do decisions shape preference? Evidence from blind choice. Psychological Science, 21, 1231–1235. doi:10.1177/0956797610379235

30.

Shen

Urminsky

(2013). Making sense of nonsense: The visual salience of units determines sensitivity to magnitude. Psychological Science, 24, 297–304. doi:10.1177/0956797612451470

31.

Shimojo

Simion

Shimojo

Scheier

(2003). Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 1317–1322. doi:10.1038/nn1150

32.

Simon

Spiller

S. A.

(2016). The elasticity of preferences. Psychological Science, 27, 1588–1599. doi:10.1177/0956797616666501

33.

Smith

(1976). The theory of moral sentiments. Clifton, NJ: Kelley. (Original work published 1759)

34.

Störmer

V. S.

Alvarez

G. A.

(2016). Attention alters perceived attractiveness. Psychological Science, 27, 563–571. doi:10.1177/0956797616630964

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.71 MB

0.55 MB

The Power of Attention: Using Eye Gaze to Predict Other-Regarding and Moral Choices

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material