IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v70y2024i5p2912-2933.html

Planned vs. Actual Attention

Author

Listed:
  • Ala Avoyan

    (Department of Economics, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405)

  • Mauricio Ribeiro

    (School of Economics, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TU, United Kingdom)

  • Andrew Schotter

    (School of Economics, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TU, United Kingdom; Department of Economics, New York University, New York, New York 10003)

  • Elizabeth R. Schotter

    (Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 33620)

  • Mehrdad Vaziri

    (School of Geosciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 33620)

  • Minghao Zou

    (Department of Economics, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08540)

Abstract

People often need to plan how to allocate their attention across different tasks. In this paper, we run two experiments to study a stylized version of this attention-allocation problem between strategic tasks. More specifically, we present subjects with pairs of 2 × 2 games, and for each pair, we give them 10 seconds to decide how they would split a fixed time budget between the two games. Then, subjects play both games without time constraints, and we use eye-tracking to estimate the fraction of time they spend on each game. We find that subjects’ planned and actual attention allocation differ and identify the determinants of this mismatch. Further, we argue that misallocations can be relevant in games in which a player’s strategy choice is sensitive to the time taken to reach a decision.

Suggested Citation

  • Ala Avoyan & Mauricio Ribeiro & Andrew Schotter & Elizabeth R. Schotter & Mehrdad Vaziri & Minghao Zou, 2024. "Planned vs. Actual Attention," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(5), pages 2912-2933, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:70:y:2024:i:5:p:2912-2933
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2023.4834
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4834
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4834?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ian Krajbich & Bastiaan Oud & Ernst Fehr, 2014. "Benefits of Neuroeconomic Modeling: New Policy Interventions and Predictors of Preference," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(5), pages 501-506, May.
    2. Konovalov, Arkady & Krajbich, Ian, 2019. "Revealed strength of preference: Inference from response times," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(4), pages 381-394, July.
    3. Radner, Roy & Rothschild, Michael, 1975. "On the allocation of effort," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 358-376, June.
    4. Daniel T. Knoepfle & Joseph Tao-yi Wang & Colin F. Camerer, 2009. "Studying Learning in Games Using Eye-Tracking," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 7(2-3), pages 388-398, 04-05.
    5. Ariel Rubinstein, 2007. "Instinctive and Cognitive Reasoning: A Study of Response Times," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(523), pages 1243-1259, October.
    6. Giovanna Devetag & Sibilla Guida & Luca Polonio, 2016. "An eye-tracking study of feature-based choice in one-shot games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(1), pages 177-201, March.
    7. Ian Krajbich & Björn Bartling & Todd Hare & Ernst Fehr, 2015. "Rethinking fast and slow based on a critique of reaction-time reverse inference," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, November.
    8. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    9. Marina Agranov & Andrew Caplin & Chloe Tergiman, 2015. "Naive play and the process of choice in guessing games," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(2), pages 146-157, December.
    10. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean & Daniel Martin, 2011. "Search and Satisficing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 2899-2922, December.
    11. Giovanna Devetag & Sibilla Guida & Luca Polonio, 2016. "An eye-tracking study of feature-based choice in one-shot games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(1), pages 177-201, March.
    12. Hausfeld, Jan & Fischbacher, Urs & Knoch, Daria, 2020. "The value of decision-making power in social decisions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 898-912.
    13. Recalde, María P. & Riedl, Arno & Vesterlund, Lise, 2018. "Error-prone inference from response time: The case of intuitive generosity in public-good games," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 132-147.
    14. , & ,, 2011. "Search, choice, and revealed preference," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 6(1), January.
    15. Cary Frydman & Ian Krajbich, 2022. "Using Response Times to Infer Others’ Private Information: An Application to Information Cascades," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2970-2986, April.
    16. Arkady Konovalov & Ian Krajbich, 2019. "Revealed strength of preference: Inference from response times," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(4), pages 381-394, July.
    17. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Garagnani, Michele, 2020. "The cognitive foundations of cooperation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 71-85.
    18. Daniel Kahneman, 2003. "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1449-1475, December.
    19. Fadong Chen & Ian Krajbich, 2018. "Biased sequential sampling underlies the effects of time pressure and delay in social decision making," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    20. David G. Rand & Joshua D. Greene & Martin A. Nowak, 2012. "Spontaneous giving and calculated greed," Nature, Nature, vol. 489(7416), pages 427-430, September.
    21. Polonio, Luca & Di Guida, Sibilla & Coricelli, Giorgio, 2015. "Strategic sophistication and attention in games: An eye-tracking study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 80-96.
    22. Ariel Rubinstein, 2016. "A Typology of Players: Between Instinctive and Contemplative," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 131(2), pages 859-890.
    23. Jonathan W. Leland & Mark Schneider, 2015. "Salience and Strategy Choice in 2 × 2 Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-39, October.
    24. Ariel Rubinstein, 2007. "Instinctive and Cognitive Reasoning: Response Times Study," Levine's Bibliography 321307000000001011, UCLA Department of Economics.
    25. David Gill & Victoria Prowse, 2023. "Strategic Complexity and the Value of Thinking," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 133(650), pages 761-786.
    26. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Recalde, María P. & Riedl, Arno & Vesterlund, Lise, 2018. "Error-prone inference from response time: The case of intuitive generosity in public-good games," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 132-147.
    2. Clithero, John A., 2018. "Response times in economics: Looking through the lens of sequential sampling models," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 61-86.
    3. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Johannes Buckenmaier, 2021. "Cognitive sophistication and deliberation times," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 558-592, June.
    4. Fischbacher, Urs & Hausfeld, Jan & Renerte, Baiba, 2022. "Strategic incentives undermine gaze as a signal of prosocial motives," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 63-91.
    5. Johannes Lohse & Timo Goeschl & Johannes H. Diederich, 2017. "Giving is a Question of Time: Response Times and Contributions to an Environmental Public Good," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(3), pages 455-477, July.
    6. Fadong Chen & Urs Fischbacher, 2016. "Response time and click position: cheap indicators of preferences," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 2(2), pages 109-126, November.
    7. Barrafrem, Kinga & Hausfeld, Jan, 2020. "Tracing risky decisions for oneself and others: The role of intuition and deliberation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    8. Avoyan, Ala & Schotter, Andrew, 2020. "Attention in games: An experimental study," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    9. Grabiszewski, Konrad & Horenstein, Alex, 2020. "Effort is not a monotonic function of skills: Results from a global mobile experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 634-652.
    10. David J. Cooper & Ian Krajbich & Charles N. Noussair, 2019. "Choice-Process Data in Experimental Economics," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, August.
    11. Lohse, Johannes & Rahal, Rima-Maria & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Michael & Sofianos, Andis & Wollbrant, Conny, 2024. "Investigations of decision processes at the intersection of psychology and economics," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    12. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Ritschel, Alexander, 2021. "Multiple behavioral rules in Cournot oligopolies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 250-267.
    13. J. Hausfeld & K. von Hesler & S. Goldlücke, 2021. "Strategic gaze: an interactive eye-tracking study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 177-205, March.
    14. Sophie Bavard & Erik Stuchlý & Arkady Konovalov & Sebastian Gluth, 2024. "Humans can infer social preferences from decision speed alone," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 22(6), pages 1-27, June.
    15. Fadong Chen & Gideon Nave & Lei Wang, 2025. "Calculated Punishment," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 200(3), pages 715-731, September.
    16. Fadong Chen & Urs Fischbacher, 2020. "Cognitive processes underlying distributional preferences: a response time study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 421-446, June.
    17. Anna Louisa Merkel & Johannes Lohse, 2019. "Is fairness intuitive? An experiment accounting for subjective utility differences under time pressure," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 24-50, March.
    18. Deepti Bhatia & Urs Fischbacher & Jan Hausfeld & Regina Stumpf, 2024. "Blame and praise: responsibility attribution patterns in decision chains," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(3), pages 637-663, July.
    19. Krawczyk, Michał & Sylwestrzak, Marta, 2018. "Exploring the role of deliberation time in non-selfish behavior: The double response method," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 121-134.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:70:y:2024:i:5:p:2912-2933. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.