Eye Movements in Risky Choice

Abstract We asked participants to make simple risky choices while we recorded their eye movements. We built a complete statistical model of the eye movements and found very little systematic variation in eye movements over the time course of a choice or across the different choices. The only exceptions were finding more (of the same) eye movements when choice options were similar, and an emerging gaze bias in which people looked more at the gamble they ultimately chose. These findings are inconsistent with prospect theory, the priority heuristic, or decision field theory. However, the eye movements made during a choice have a large relationship with the final choice, and this is mostly independent from the contribution of the actual attribute values in the choice options. That is, eye movements tell us not just about the processing of attribute values but also are independently associated with choice. The pattern is simple—people choose the gamble they look at more often, independently of the actual numbers they see—and this pattern is simpler than predicted by decision field theory, decision by sampling, and the parallel constraint satisfaction model. © 2015 The Authors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

[1]  Timothy L. Mullett,et al.  Implications of Visual Attention Phenomena for Models of Preferential Choice , 2016, Decision.

[2]  J. Schreiber Foundations Of Statistics , 2016 .

[3]  Neil Stewart,et al.  On the Origin of Utility, Weighting, and Discounting Functions: How They Get Their Shapes and How to Change Their Shapes , 2015, Manag. Sci..

[4]  Takao Noguchi,et al.  In the attraction, compromise, and similarity effects, alternatives are repeatedly compared in pairs on single dimensions , 2014, Cognition.

[5]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Testing process predictions of models of risky choice: a quantitative model comparison approach , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[6]  Jacob L. Orquin,et al.  Attention and choice: a review on eye movements in decision making. , 2013, Acta psychologica.

[7]  Shu Li,et al.  Is making a risky choice based on a weighting and adding process? An eye-tracking investigation. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[8]  Savannah Wei Shi,et al.  Information Acquisition During Online Decision Making: A Model-Based Exploration Using Eye-Tracking Data , 2013, Manag. Sci..

[9]  R. Goebel,et al.  Local Discriminability Determines the Strength of Holistic Processing for Faces in the Fusiform Face Area , 2013, Front. Psychology.

[10]  Marius Usher,et al.  Disentangling decision models: from independence to competition. , 2013, Psychological review.

[11]  Graham Loomes,et al.  Testing the ‘standard’ model of stochastic choice under risk , 2012 .

[12]  Andreas Glöckner,et al.  The Dynamics of Decision Making in Risky Choice: An Eye-Tracking Analysis , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[13]  Elizabeth R Schotter,et al.  Heuristics and criterion setting during selective encoding in visual decision making: Evidence from eye movements , 2012, Visual cognition.

[14]  S. Sen,et al.  Connections among Decision Field Theory models of cognition , 2012 .

[15]  Adele Diederich,et al.  The 2N-ary Choice Tree Model for N-Alternative Preferential Choice , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[16]  Andreas Glöckner,et al.  Network approaches for expert decisions in sports. , 2012, Human movement science.

[17]  S. Fiedler,et al.  Processing Differences between Descriptions and Experience: A Comparative Analysis Using Eye-Tracking and Physiological Measures , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[18]  Thorsten M. Buzug,et al.  IR-04-067 Adaptive Speciation : Introduction , 2004 .

[19]  Alexander Pollatsek,et al.  Psychology of reading, 2nd ed. , 2012 .

[20]  C. A. Weaver,et al.  Psychology of Reading , 2012 .

[21]  Ariel Rubinstein,et al.  Tracking Decision Makers under Uncertainty , 2011 .

[22]  A. Rangel,et al.  Multialternative drift-diffusion model predicts the relationship between visual fixations and choice in value-based decisions , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[23]  Michael Schulte-Mecklenbeck,et al.  A Handbook of Process Tracing Methods for Decision Research. A Critical Review and User's Guide , 2011 .

[24]  Eyal M. Reingold,et al.  Eye Movement Monitoring as a Process Tracing Methodology in Decision Making Research , 2011 .

[25]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Heuristic decision making. , 2011, Annual review of psychology.

[26]  R. Nagel,et al.  Search Dynamics in Consumer Choice under Time Pressure: An Eye-Tracking Study , 2011 .

[27]  Andreas Glöckner,et al.  An eye‐tracking study on information processing in risky decisions: Evidence for compensatory strategies based on automatic processes , 2011 .

[28]  Ian Krajbich,et al.  Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice , 2010, Nature Neuroscience.

[29]  M. Birnbaum Testing lexicographic semiorders as models of decision making: Priority dominance, integration, interaction, and transitivity , 2010 .

[30]  Elizabeth R Schotter,et al.  Gaze bias: Selective encoding and liking effects , 2010 .

[31]  Eyal M. Reingold,et al.  The time course of gaze bias in visual decision tasks , 2009 .

[32]  K. Rayner The 35th Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture: Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search , 2009, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[33]  Neil Stewart EPS Prize Lecture: Decision by sampling: The role of the decision environment in risky choice , 2009, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[34]  Eyal M Reingold,et al.  Stimulus exposure and gaze bias: A further test of the gaze cascade model , 2009, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[35]  Andreas Glöckner,et al.  How Distinct are Intuition and Deliberation? An Eye-Tracking Analysis of Instruction-Induced Decision Modes , 2009, Judgment and Decision Making.

[36]  A. Rangel,et al.  Biasing simple choices by manipulating relative visual attention , 2008, Judgment and Decision Making.

[37]  M. Birnbaum,et al.  New Paradoxes of Risky Decision Making , 2022 .

[38]  N. Chater,et al.  The probabilistic mind: prospects for Bayesian cognitive science , 2008 .

[39]  A. Glöckner,et al.  Do People Make Decisions Under Risk Based on Ignorance? An Empirical Test of the Priority Heuristic Against Cumulative Prospect Theory , 2008 .

[40]  Andreas Glöckner,et al.  Modeling Option and Strategy Choices with Connectionist Networks: Towards an Integrative Model of Automatic and Deliberate Decision Making , 2008, Judgment and Decision Making.

[41]  Michael Schulte-Mecklenbeck,et al.  Process Models Deserve Process Data: Comment on Brandstatter, Gigerenzer, and Hertwig (2006) , 2008, Psychological review.

[42]  Neil Stewart,et al.  A decision-by-sampling account of decision under risk , 2008 .

[43]  M. Birnbaum,et al.  Dimension integration: Testing models without trade-offs , 2008 .

[44]  M. Birnbaum Evaluation of the priority heuristic as a descriptive model of risky decision making: comment on Brandstätter, Gigerenzer, and Hertwig (2006). , 2008, Psychological review.

[45]  J. Gold,et al.  The neural basis of decision making. , 2007, Annual review of neuroscience.

[46]  Shinsuke Shimojo,et al.  Interrupting the cascade: Orienting contributes to decision making even in the absence of visual stimulation , 2007, Perception & psychophysics.

[47]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[48]  S. Shimojo,et al.  Early interactions between orienting, visual sampling and decision making in facial preference , 2006, Vision Research.

[49]  Gordon D. A. Brown,et al.  Decision by sampling , 2006, Cognitive Psychology.

[50]  R. Hertwig,et al.  The priority heuristic: making choices without trade-offs. , 2006, Psychological review.

[51]  M. Birnbaum Causes of Allais common consequence paradoxes: An experimental dissection ☆ , 2004 .

[52]  S. Shimojo,et al.  Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference , 2003, Nature Neuroscience.

[53]  James L. McClelland,et al.  The time course of perceptual choice: the leaky, competing accumulator model. , 2001, Psychological review.

[54]  J. Townsend,et al.  Multialternative Decision Field Theory: A Dynamic Connectionist Model of Decision Making , 2001 .

[55]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Multialternative decision field theory: a dynamic connectionist model of decision making. , 2001, Psychological review.

[56]  S. Liversedge,et al.  Saccadic eye movements and cognition , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[57]  K. Rayner Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[58]  Jeffrey N. Rouder,et al.  Modeling Response Times for Two-Choice Decisions , 1998 .

[59]  Diederich,et al.  Dynamic Stochastic Models for Decision Making under Time Constraints , 1997, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[60]  M. Birnbaum,et al.  Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Tests of Theories of Decision Making: Violations of Branch Independence and Distribution Independence Generic Rank-dependent Utility Generic Analysis of Violations of Branch Independence and Distribution Independence Birnbaum and Mcintosh Model: N , 2022 .

[61]  J. Quiggin,et al.  Generalized Expected Utility Theory. The Rank-Dependent Model , 1996 .

[62]  J. Quiggin Generalized expected utility theory : the rank-dependent model , 1994 .

[63]  J. E. Russo,et al.  An Eye-Fixation Analysis of Choice Processes for Consumer Nondurables , 1994 .

[64]  J. Townsend,et al.  Decision field theory: a dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. , 1993, Psychological review.

[65]  A. Tversky,et al.  Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty , 1992 .

[66]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Adaptive Strategy Selection in Decision Making. , 1988 .

[67]  B. Dosher,et al.  Strategies for multiattribute binary choice. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[68]  R. Sugden,et al.  Regret Theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty Review of Economic Studies , 1982 .

[69]  R. Dawes Judgment under uncertainty: The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making , 1979 .

[70]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[71]  J. Payne,et al.  Risky choice: An examination of information acquisition behavior , 1978, Memory & cognition.

[72]  K. Rayner Eye movements in reading and information processing. , 1978, Psychological bulletin.

[73]  Larry D. Rosen,et al.  An eye fixation analysis of choice and judgment with multiattribute stimuli , 1976, Memory & cognition.

[74]  Allan Collins,et al.  A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing , 1975 .

[75]  D. Vickers,et al.  Evidence for an accumulator model of psychophysical discrimination. , 1970, Ergonomics.

[76]  Donald Laming,et al.  Information theory of choice-reaction times , 1968 .

[77]  A. L. I︠A︡rbus Eye Movements and Vision , 1967 .

[78]  A. L. Yarbus,et al.  Eye Movements and Vision , 1967, Springer US.

[79]  W. Edwards Subjective probabilities inferred from decisions. , 1962, Psychological review.

[80]  D. Bernoulli Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk , 1954 .

[81]  J. Neumann,et al.  Theory of games and economic behavior , 1945, 100 Years of Math Milestones.

[82]  Carl Newton Rexroad,et al.  Attention and choice. , 1929 .