Evaluation Scale or Output Format: The Attentional Mechanism Underpinning Time Preference Reversal

Zhou, Yan-Bang; Li, Qiang; Li, Qiu‐Yue; Liu, Hongzhi

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.865598

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…SMI is a function of the difference between the observed alternative‐based and attribute‐based saccades (Böckenholt & Hynan, 1994), which is calculated as follows:

S M I = \frac{\sqrt{normalN} ([], ((), \frac{AD}{normalN}) false({normalr}_{a} - {normalr}_{d} false) - false(normalD - normalA false))}{\sqrt{{normalA}^{2} false(normalD - 1 false) + {normalD}^{2} false(normalA - 1 false)}}

where A and D denote the number of alternatives and the number of attributes, respectively (i.e., in this experiment, A = 2, D = 2);

{italicr}_{a}

and

{italicr}_{d}

denote the number of alternative‐based transitions and attribute‐based transitions, respectively; and N denotes the number of total transitions. A positive value of SMI indicates a predominantly alternative‐based search, and a negative value of SMI indicates a predominantly attribute‐based search (Su et al, 2013; Zhou et al, 2022).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Information search processing affects social decisions

Wei,

Liang,

Liang

et al. 2023

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social decisions often require individuals to balance conflicts between their own selfish interests and the need for equality. The way information about available options is presented can have an impact on how people process information and make social decisions. In this study, we examined the effect of information presentation on social decisions in a mini‐dictator game, where participants must make binary choices about how to allocate money between themselves and another participant. We conducted two tasks with different presentation styles: the attribute‐based task, where attributes such as own payoffs or others' payoffs were displayed sequentially, and the alternative‐based task, where alternatives were displayed sequentially. We found that participants in the attribute‐based task made more selfish choices and were less sensitive to equality than those in the alternative‐based task. The direction of information search and the complexity level of information processing played a mediating role in the effect of task on social decisions. Our findings highlight the relationship between information search and social decisions, shedding light on the mechanisms and processes that underlie social decision‐making.

show abstract

“…SMI is a function of the difference between the observed alternative‐based and attribute‐based saccades (Böckenholt & Hynan, 1994), which is calculated as follows:

S M I = \frac{\sqrt{normalN} ([], ((), \frac{AD}{normalN}) false({normalr}_{a} - {normalr}_{d} false) - false(normalD - normalA false))}{\sqrt{{normalA}^{2} false(normalD - 1 false) + {normalD}^{2} false(normalA - 1 false)}}

where A and D denote the number of alternatives and the number of attributes, respectively (i.e., in this experiment, A = 2, D = 2);

{italicr}_{a}

and

{italicr}_{d}

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Information search processing affects social decisions

Wei,

Liang,

Liang

et al. 2023

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the effect of incentives on the values of TDT, OGP, and SMI remains unobserved. The values of TDT reflect the efficiency of information processing (Karalunas et al, 2012 ), OGP reflect the decision weight on outcome attribute (Zhou et al, 2021 ), and SMI reflect the direction of information search (i.e., alternative-wise vs. attribute-wise) (Su et al, 2013 ; Liu et al, 2021b ; Zhou et al, 2022 ). Findings herein suggest that the incentives do not affect the key variables concerned by eye-tracking research on decision-making, such as decision weight and direction of information search.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(2) The mean fixation duration (MFD) was calculated by dividing the TDT by the number of fixations. The values of MFD are sensitive to cognitive effort (Zhou et al, 2022 ) or the complexity level of information processing (Velichkovsky, 1999 ; Velichkovsky et al, 2002 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effect of incentives on intertemporal choice: Choice, confidence, and eye movements

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite various studies examining intertemporal choice with hypothetical rewards due to problematic real reward delivery, there remains no substantial evidence on the effect of the incentives on the decision confidence and cognitive process in intertemporal choice and no comprehensive exploration on the loss domain. Hence, this study conducts an eye-tracking experiment to examine the effect of incentive approach and measure participants' decision confidence using a between-subject design in both gain and loss domains. Results replicated previous findings which show incentives do not affect intertemporal choice in the gain domain. In contrast, in the loss domain, participants in the incentivized group were more likely to choose the larger-later options than those in the non-incentivized group. Furthermore, the decision confidence and the mean fixation duration differed between the incentivized and non-incentivized groups in both gain and loss domains. These findings allow for a better understanding of the effect of incentives on intertemporal choice and provide valuable information for the design of incentives in future intertemporal experiments.

show abstract

Preference reversal in intertemporal decision making

Zhou,

Zhang,

Zhai

et al. 2024

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines asymmetric preference reversals in intertemporal decision-making by comparing gain and loss contexts across choice and bidding tasks. In the gain context, participants preferred smaller, sooner (SS) rewards in choice tasks but assigned higher valuations to larger, later (LL) rewards in bidding tasks. Conversely, in the loss context, they showed a preference for LL options in choice tasks but provided lower bids for SS options. Bidding tasks consistently required longer decision times than choice tasks, indicating greater cognitive demands during valuation processes. A real-world questionnaire involving 370 participants validated these findings across economic and health-related scenarios. These results underscore the role of task formats in shaping preferences, offering practical insights for refining strategies in behavioral decision-making and applied contexts.

show abstract

Evaluation Scale or Output Format: The Attentional Mechanism Underpinning Time Preference Reversal

Cited by 4 publications

References 49 publications

Information search processing affects social decisions

Information search processing affects social decisions

The effect of incentives on intertemporal choice: Choice, confidence, and eye movements

Preference reversal in intertemporal decision making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About