In the attraction, compromise, and similarity effects, alternatives are repeatedly compared in pairs on single dimensions

Abstract

In multi-alternative choice, the attraction, compromise, and similarity effects demonstrate that the value of an alternative is not independent of the other alternatives in the choice-set. Rather, these effects suggest that a choice is reached through the comparison of alternatives. We investigated exactly how alternatives are compared against each other using eye-movement data. The results indicate that a series of comparisons is made in each choice, with a pair of alternatives compared on a single attribute dimension in each comparison. We conclude that psychological models of choice should be based on these single-attribute pairwise comparisons.

Eyetracking of social preference choices reveals normal but faster processing in autism

“…After several repetitions, participants report a preference bias for the longer-presented face, indicating that manipulation of gaze can directly influence preference decisions. While the gaze cascade effect has been observed in other studies examining preference choice (Noguchi and Stewart, 2014; Simion and Shimojo, 2006), the effect may also extend to other types of visual decision-making tasks (Fiedler, 2012; Glaholt and Reingold, 2009; Wiener et al, 2011). …”

Connecting cognition and consumer choice

“…(One of many reasons to expect it does: Firms pay significant money to ensure product placement at eye-level. See Noguchi & Stewart, 2014 for an investigation of how gaze transitions relate to context effects.) Most cognitive models do not have much to say about these issues, but could, and doing so would both increase their relevance for consumer choice and their ability to be applied in other choice domains, such as political science or health.…”

Information foraging for perceptual decisions

“…The way information is sampled can influence choice behavior in perceptual tasks, value-based decision making and experiential risky choice paradigms (Glaholt & Reingold, 2009Hills & Hertwig, 2010;Krajbich et al, 2010Krajbich et al, , 2015Krajbich & Rangel, 2011;Noguchi & Stewart, 2014;Russo & Leclerc, 1994;Shimojo et al, 2003). Computational models of decision making typically focus on the overall choice, given that a certain amount of information is available to the decision maker.…”

“…In recent years, there has been a great deal of interest in the relationship between gaze behavior and decision making (Glaholt & Reingold, 2009;Krajbich et al, 2010Krajbich et al, , 2015Krajbich & Rangel, 2011;Noguchi & Stewart, 2014;Russo & Leclerc, 1994;Shimojo et al, 2003). Specifically, it has been shown that the option fixated for longer and fixated last is more likely to be chosen (Glaholt & Reingold, 2009;Krajbich et al, 2010;Krajbich & Rangel, 2011;Shimojo et al, 2003).…”

“…The way information is sampled can influence the outcome of the decision in perceptual tasks (Glaholt & Reingold, 2009Russo & Leclerc, 1994;Shimojo, Simion, Shimojo, & Scheier, 2003), value-based judgments (Krajbich, Armel, & Rangel, 2010;Krajbich, Hare, Bartling, Morishima, & Fehr, 2015;Krajbich & Rangel, 2011;Noguchi & Stewart, 2014) and in risky gambles (Hills & Hertwig, 2010). Most theory development across these different domains of decision making has focused on the overarching decision process: How do humans use the acquired information in order to come to a decision?…”