How Distinct are Intuition and Deliberation? An Eye-Tracking Analysis of Instruction-Induced Decision Modes

Abstract

In recent years, numerous studies comparing intuition and deliberation have been published. However, until now relatively little is known about the cognitive processes underlying the two decision modes. Therefore, we analyzed processes of information search and integration using eye-tracking technology. We tested hypotheses derived from dual-process models which postulate that intuition and deliberation are completely distinct processes against predictions of interventionist models. The latter assume that intuitive and deliberate decisions are based on the same basic process which is supplemented by additional processes in the deliberate decision mode. We manipulated decision mode between-participants by means of instructions and participants completed simple and complex city-size tasks as well as complex legal inference tasks. Our findings indicate that the instruction to deliberate does not necessarily increase levels of processing. We found no difference in mean fixation duration and the distribution of short, medium and long fixations. Instruction-induced deliberation led to a higher number of fixations, a more complete information search and more repeated information investigations. Overall, the data support interventionist models suggesting that decisions mainly rely on automatic processes which are supplemented by additional operations in the deliberate decision mode.

Decision moving window: using interactive eye tracking to examine decision processes

“…We computed a fixation by summing eye placement on a specific AOI (from the onset of eye movement to AOI until the eye movement was displaced from the given AOI), using the raw eye-tracking data generated in the experiment. In the next section, we describe how we tested and implemented this methodology using a probabilistic inferential decision task similar to the tasks used to examine both eye tracking and information processing during decision making (e.g., Glöckner & Betsch, 2008;Horstmann et al, 2009). …”

“…Consequently, they compared information processing during the mouse-tracing paradigm with information processing during a full display (without hidden cells) while eye movements were measured (henceforth referred to as open eye tracking). Recent work has applied open eye-tracking technology to capture processes naturally invoked during decision making (Glöckner & Herbold, 2011;Horstmann, Ahlgrimm, & Glöckner, 2009; see also Norman & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, 2010, for a discussion of eye-tracking methods and advantages). Notably, eye-tracking measures have been used to dissociate between automatic and deliberate processing of information during a decision task (Glöckner & Herbold, 2011;Horstmann et al, 2009; see also Glöckner & Betsch, 2008).…”

“…Recent work has applied open eye-tracking technology to capture processes naturally invoked during decision making (Glöckner & Herbold, 2011;Horstmann, Ahlgrimm, & Glöckner, 2009; see also Norman & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, 2010, for a discussion of eye-tracking methods and advantages). Notably, eye-tracking measures have been used to dissociate between automatic and deliberate processing of information during a decision task (Glöckner & Herbold, 2011;Horstmann et al, 2009; see also Glöckner & Betsch, 2008). This work reveals that eye-tracking measures were better for capturing automatic processes that are often overlooked with mouse-tracing methods, and similar findings were observed when gambles were used as the decision task (Glöckner & Herbold, 2011).…”

Preference Inferences from Eye-Related Cues in Sales-Consumer Settings: ERP Timing and Localization in Relation to Inferring Performance and Oxytocin Receptor (OXTR) Gene Polymorphisms

“…In sales-consumer interaction eye-related cues (i.e., eye movements, number of fixations, mean dwell times, pupil dilation) can be used to infer not only consumers' direction of attention toward certain product but also to infer current preferences and intentions (Nummenmaa & Calder, 2009;Venkatraman et al, 2014). For instance, several studies suggested that fewer fixations in combination with longer dwell times during ad viewing are likely to reflect more detailed cognitive processing (Horstmann et al, 2009). …”

Affective response to a lottery prize moderates processing of payoffs and probabilities: An eye-tracking study

“…Recent research has shown that eye-tracking measures, such as the number and time of fixations, are related to the level of information processing (Horstmann, Ahlgrimm, & Glöckner, 2009) and the amount of attentional resources engaged in this processing (Fiedler & Glöckner, 2012). Furthermore, numerical characteristics of a lottery (i.e., probability, value of an outcome, and interaction between them) were predictive of the number of fixations on the favored gamble (Fiedler & Glöckner, 2012).…”