Attentional Selection Mediates Framing and Risk-Bias Effects

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.

[1]  Derrick G. Watson,et al.  The influence of attention on value integration , 2017, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

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

[3]  Nick Chater,et al.  Salience driven value integration explains decision biases and preference reversal , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[4]  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.

[5]  Elliot A. Ludvig,et al.  Of Black Swans and Tossed Coins: Is the Description-Experience Gap in Risky Choice Limited to Rare Events? , 2011, PloS one.

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

[7]  C. Koch,et al.  Simultaneous modeling of visual saliency and value computation improves predictions of economic choice , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[8]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Loss aversion and inhibition in dynamical models of multialternative choice. , 2004, Psychological review.

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

[10]  J. Rieskamp,et al.  Rigorously testing multialternative decision field theory against random utility models. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[11]  Eldar Shafir,et al.  Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others , 1993, Memory & cognition.

[12]  Pietro Perona,et al.  The Attentional Drift Diffusion Model of Simple Perceptual Decision-Making , 2017, Front. Neurosci..

[13]  I. Erev,et al.  From Anomalies to Forecasts: Toward a Descriptive Model of Decisions Under Risk, Under Ambiguity, and From Experience , 2017, Psychological review.

[14]  P. Perona,et al.  Rapid natural scene categorization in the near absence of attention , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[15]  A. Tversky Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. , 1972 .

[16]  J. Neumann,et al.  Theory of games and economic behavior, 2nd rev. ed. , 1947 .

[17]  C. MacLeod,et al.  Cognitive approaches to emotion and emotional disorders. , 1994, Annual review of psychology.

[18]  C. Summerfield,et al.  Do humans make good decisions? , 2015, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[19]  Thorsten Pachur,et al.  Constructing preference from experience: the endowment effect reflected in external information search. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[20]  Patryk A. Laurent,et al.  Value-driven attentional capture , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  Timothy J. Pleskac,et al.  Rapid decisions from experience , 2014, Cognition.

[22]  Ernst Niebur,et al.  Mechanisms underlying the influence of saliency on value-based decisions. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[23]  C. MacLeod,et al.  Attentional bias in emotional disorders. , 1986, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[24]  Christopher Summerfield,et al.  Selective overweighting of larger magnitudes during noisy numerical comparison , 2017, Nature Human Behaviour.

[25]  Nick Chater,et al.  Economic irrationality is optimal during noisy decision making , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[26]  Sudeep Bhatia,et al.  Associations and the accumulation of preference. , 2013, Psychological review.

[27]  I. Simonson,et al.  Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects , 1989 .

[28]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Individual Choice Behavior , 1959 .

[29]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Five factors that guide attention in visual search , 2017, Nature Human Behaviour.

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

[31]  Aarnout Brombacher,et al.  Black swans , 2009, Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int..

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

[33]  J. Busemeyer,et al.  Extending the Bounds of Rationality: Evidence and Theories of Preferential Choice , 2006 .

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