IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/108608.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Is attentional discounting in value-based decision making magnitude sensitive?

Author

Listed:
  • Pirrone, Angelo
  • Gobet, Fernand

Abstract

Choices in value-based decision making are affected by the magnitude of the alternatives (i.e. the summed values of the options). Magnitude sensitivity has been instrumental in discriminating between computational models of choice. Smith and Krajbich [(2019a). Gaze amplifies value in decision making. Psychological Science, 30(1), 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618810521] have shown that the attentional drift-diffusion model (aDDM) can account for magnitude sensitivity. This is because the discount parameter on the value of the nonfixated alternative ensures faster choices for high-magnitude alternatives, even in the case of high-magnitude equal alternatives compared to low-magnitude equal alternatives. Their result highlights the importance of visual fixations as a mechanism for magnitude sensitivity. This rationale relies on the untested assumption that the discount parameter is constant across magnitude levels. However, the discount parameter could vary as a function of the magnitude of the alternatives in unpredicted ways; this would suggest that the ability of the aDDM to account for magnitude sensitivity has been misinterpreted by previous research. Here, we reanalyse previous datasets and we directly test whether attentional discounting scales with the magnitude of the alternatives. Our analyses show that attentional discounting does not vary with magnitude. This result further strengthens the aDDM and the role that visual fixations could play as an explanation of magnitude sensitivity.

Suggested Citation

  • Pirrone, Angelo & Gobet, Fernand, 2021. "Is attentional discounting in value-based decision making magnitude sensitive?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 108608, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:108608
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/108608/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ian Krajbich & Todd Hare & Björn Bartling & Yosuke Morishima & Ernst Fehr, 2015. "A Common Mechanism Underlying Food Choice and Social Decisions," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-24, October.
    2. Milica Milosavljevic & Jonathan Malmaud & Alexander Huth & Christof Koch & Antonio Rangel, 2010. "The Drift Diffusion Model can account for the accuracy and reaction time of value-based choices under high and low time pressure," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(6), pages 437-449, October.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:6:p:437-449 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Ryan Webb, 2019. "The (Neural) Dynamics of Stochastic Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 230-255, January.
    5. Stephanie M. Smith & Ian Krajbich & Ryan Webb, 2019. "Estimating the dynamic role of attention via random utility," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 97-111, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Amasino, Dianna R. & Dolgin, Jack & Huettel, Scott A., 2023. "Eyes on the account size: Interactions between attention and budget in consumer choice," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).

    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. Aldo Rustichini & Philippe Domenech & Claudia Civai & Colin G DeYoung, 2023. "Working memory and attention in choice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(10), pages 1-27, October.
    2. Fiedler, Susann & Hillenbrand, Adrian, 2020. "Gain-loss framing in interdependent choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 232-251.
    3. Ryan Webb & Paul W. Glimcher & Kenway Louie, 2021. "The Normalization of Consumer Valuations: Context-Dependent Preferences from Neurobiological Constraints," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(1), pages 93-125, January.
    4. S. Cerreia-Vioglio & F. Maccheroni & M. Marinacci & A. Rustichini, 2017. "Multinomial logit processes and preference discovery: inside and outside the black box," Working Papers 615, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    5. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Johannes Buckenmaier, 2021. "Cognitive sophistication and deliberation times," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 558-592, June.
    6. Andrew Schotter & Isabel Trevino, 2021. "Is response time predictive of choice? An experimental study of threshold strategies," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 87-117, March.
    7. J. Tyler Boyd-Meredith & Alex T. Piet & Emily Jane Dennis & Ahmed El Hady & Carlos D. Brody, 2022. "Stable choice coding in rat frontal orienting fields across model-predicted changes of mind," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, December.
    8. Mogens Fosgerau & Emerson Melo & André de Palma & Matthew Shum, 2020. "Discrete Choice And Rational Inattention: A General Equivalence Result," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 61(4), pages 1569-1589, November.
    9. 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.
    10. Pennesi, Daniele, 2021. "Intertemporal discrete choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 690-706.
    11. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel A Ballester, 2021. "Separating Predicted Randomness from Residual Behavior," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 1041-1076.
    12. Hirmas, Alejandro & Engelmann, Jan B., 2023. "Impulsiveness moderates the effects of exogenous attention on the sensitivity to gains and losses in risky lotteries," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    13. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Ernst Fehr & Nick Netzer, 2021. "Time Will Tell: Recovering Preferences When Choices Are Noisy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(6), pages 1828-1877.
    14. Michel Wedel & Rik Pieters & Ralf Lans, 2023. "Modeling Eye Movements During Decision Making: A Review," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 88(2), pages 697-729, June.
    15. 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.
    16. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Michele Garagnani, 2022. "Strength of preference and decisions under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 64(3), pages 309-329, June.
    17. Webb, Ryan & Mehta, Nitin & Levy, Ifat, 2021. "Assessing consumer demand with noisy neural measurements," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 222(1), pages 89-106.
    18. Taro Ohdoko & Satoru Komatsu, 2023. "Integrating a Pareto-Distributed Scale into the Mixed Logit Model: A Mathematical Concept," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-22, November.
    19. Amasino, Dianna R. & Dolgin, Jack & Huettel, Scott A., 2023. "Eyes on the account size: Interactions between attention and budget in consumer choice," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    20. Daniel Serra, 2019. "La neuroéconomie en question : débats et controverses," Working Papers halshs-02160911, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C1 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ehl:lserod:108608. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.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.