Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Humans display a number of puzzling choice patterns that contradict basic principles of rationality. For example, they show preferences that change as a result of task framing or of adding irrelevant alternatives into the choice set. A recent theory has proposed that such choice and risk biases arise from an attentional mechanism that increases the relative weighting of goal-consistent information and protects the decision from noise after the sensory stage. Here, using a divided-attention method based on the dot-probe technique, we showed that attentional selection toward values congruent with the task goal takes place while participants make choices between alternatives that consist of payoff sequences. Moreover, we demonstrated that the magnitude of this attentional selection predicts risk attitudes, indicating a common underlying cognitive process. The results highlight the dynamic interplay between attention and choice mechanisms in producing framing effects and risk biases.

Keywords

selective attention decision making computational models framing effects risk attitudes open data open materials

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

B. A.

Laurent

P. A.

Yantis

(2011). Value-driven attentional capture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 108, 10367–10371.

Berkowitsch

N. A.

Scheibehenne

Rieskamp

(2014). Rigorously testing multialternative decision field theory against random utility models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 1331–1348.

Bhatia

(2013). Associations and the accumulation of preference. Psychological Review, 120, 522–543.

Birnbaum

M. H.

(2008). New paradoxes of risky decision making. Psychological Review, 115, 463–501.

Busemeyer

J. R.

Townsend

J. T.

(1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review, 100, 432–459.

Chen

Mihalas

Niebur

Stuphorn

(2013). Mechanisms underlying the influence of saliency on value-based decisions. Journal of Vision, 13(12), Article 18. doi:10.1167/13.12.18

Diederich

(1997). Dynamic stochastic models for decision making under time constraints. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 41, 260–274.

Erev

Ert

Plonsky

Cohen

. (2017). From anomalies to forecasts: Toward a descriptive model of decisions under risk, under ambiguity, and from experience. Psychological Review, 124, 369–409.

Krajbich

Armel

Rangel

(2010). Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice. Nature Neuroscience, 13, 1292–1298.

10.

Krajbich

Rangel

(2011). Multialternative drift-diffusion model predicts the relationship between visual fixations and choice in value-based decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 108, 13852–13857.

11.

Kunar

M. A.

Watson

D. G.

Tsetsos

Chater

(2017). The influence of attention on value integration. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79, 1615–1627.

12.

F. F.

VanRullen

Koch

Perona

(2002). Rapid natural scene categorization in the near absence of attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 99, 9596–9601.

13.

Luce

R. D.

(1959). Individual choice behavior. New York, NY: Wiley.

14.

Ludvig

E. A.

Spetch

M. L.

(2011). Of black swans and tossed coins: Is the description-experience gap in risky choice limited to rare events? PLOS ONE, 6(6), Article e20262. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020262

15.

MacLeod

Mathews

Tata

(1986). Attentional bias in emotional disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 15–20.

16.

Mathews

MacLeod

(1994). Cognitive approaches to emotion and emotional disorders. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 25–50.

17.

Pachur

Scheibehenne

(2012). Constructing preference from experience: The endowment effect reflected in external information search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1108–1116.

18.

Pleskac

T. J.

Hopwood

Liu

(in press). Characterizing deliberation during preferential choice: A modeling and individual difference study. Decision.

19.

Rieskamp

Busemeyer

J. R.

Mellers

B. A.

(2006). Extending the bounds of rationality: Evidence and theories of preferential choice. Journal of Economic Literature, 44, 631–661.

20.

Roe

R. M.

Busemeyer

J. R.

Townsend

J. T.

(2001). Multialternative decision field theory: A dynamic connectionist model of decision making. Psychological Review, 108, 370–392.

21.

Shafir

(1993). Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others. Memory & Cognition, 21, 546–556.

22.

Shimojo

Simion

Shimojo

Scheier

(2003). Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 1317–1322.

23.

Simonson

(1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158–174.

24.

Spitzer

Waschke

Summerfield

(2017). Selective overweighting of larger magnitudes during noisy numerical comparison. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(8), Article 0145. doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0145

25.

Summerfield

Tsetsos

(2015). Do humans make good decisions? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 27–34.

26.

Tavares

Perona

Rangel

(2017). The attentional drift diffusion model of simple perceptual decision-making. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 11, Article 468. doi:10.3389/fnins.2017.00468

27.

Towal

R. B.

Mormann

Koch

(2013). Simultaneous modeling of visual saliency and value computation improves predictions of economic choice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 110, E3858–E3867.

28.

Tsetsos

Chater

Usher

(2012). Salience driven value integration explains decision biases and preference reversal. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 109, 9659–9664.

29.

Tsetsos

Moran

Moreland

Chater

Usher

Summerfield

(2016). Economic irrationality is optimal during noisy decision making. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 113, 3102–3107.

30.

Tversky

(1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79, 281–299.

31.

Usher

McClelland

J. L.

(2004). Loss aversion and inhibition in dynamical models of multialternative choice. Psychological Review, 111, 757–769.

32.

Von Neumann

Morgenstern

. (1947). Theory of games and economic behavior (2nd rev.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

33.

Wolfe

J. M.

Horowitz

T. S.

(2017). Five factors that guide attention in visual search. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, Article 0058. doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0058

34.

Zeigenfuse

M. D.

Pleskac

T. J.

Liu

(2014). Rapid decisions from experience. Cognition, 131, 181–194.

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

0.58 MB

0.94 MB

Attentional Selection Mediates Framing and Risk-Bias Effects

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material