Literature DB >> 23687917

Is making a risky choice based on a weighting and adding process? An eye-tracking investigation.

Yin Su1, Li-Lin Rao, Hong-Yue Sun, Xue-Lei Du, Xingshan Li, Shu Li.   

Abstract

The debate about whether making a risky choice is based on a weighting and adding process has a long history and is still unresolved. To address this long-standing controversy, we developed a comparative paradigm. Participants' eye movements in 2 risky choice tasks that required participants to choose between risky options in single-play and multiple-play conditions were separately compared with those in a baseline task in which participants naturally performed a deliberate calculation following a weighting and adding process. The results showed that, when participants performed the multiple-play risky choice task, their eye movements were similar to those in the baseline task, suggesting that participants may use a weighting and adding process to make risky choices in multiple-play conditions. In contrast, participants' eye movements were different in the single-play risky choice task versus the baseline task, suggesting that participants were not likely to use a weighting and adding process to make risky choices in single-play conditions and were more likely to use a heuristic process. We concluded that an expectation-based index for predicting risk preferences is applicable in multiple-play conditions but not in single-play conditions, implying the need to improve current theories that postulate the use of a heuristic process. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23687917     DOI: 10.1037/a0032861

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn        ISSN: 0278-7393            Impact factor:   3.051


  8 in total

Review 1.  Using Bayesian hierarchical parameter estimation to assess the generalizability of cognitive models of choice.

Authors:  Benjamin Scheibehenne; Thorsten Pachur
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-04

2.  Gaze-dependent evidence accumulation predicts multi-alternative risky choice behaviour.

Authors:  Felix Molter; Armin W Thomas; Scott A Huettel; Hauke R Heekeren; Peter N C Mohr
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 4.779

3.  Testing process predictions of models of risky choice: a quantitative model comparison approach.

Authors:  Thorsten Pachur; Ralph Hertwig; Gerd Gigerenzer; Eduard Brandstätter
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-09-27

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

Authors:  Yan-Bang Zhou; Qiang Li; Qiu-Yue Li; Hong-Zhi Liu
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-04-14

5.  The neural correlates of risky decision making across short and long runs.

Authors:  Li-Lin Rao; John C Dunn; Yuan Zhou; Shu Li
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-10-30       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Cognitive process underlying ultimatum game: An eye-tracking study from a dual-system perspective.

Authors:  Zi-Han Wei; Qiu-Yue Li; Ci-Juan Liang; Hong-Zhi Liu
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-09-27

7.  Eye Movements in Strategic Choice.

Authors:  Neil Stewart; Simon Gächter; Takao Noguchi; Timothy L Mullett
Journal:  J Behav Decis Mak       Date:  2015-10-29

8.  Eye Movements in Risky Choice.

Authors:  Neil Stewart; Frouke Hermens; William J Matthews
Journal:  J Behav Decis Mak       Date:  2015-01-26
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.