Literature DB >> 26432714

Comparing perceptual and preferential decision making.

Gilles Dutilh1, Jörg Rieskamp2.   

Abstract

Perceptual and preferential decision making have been studied largely in isolation. Perceptual decisions are considered to be at a non-deliberative cognitive level and have an outside criterion that defines the quality of decisions. Preferential decisions are considered to be at a higher cognitive level and the quality of decisions depend on the decision maker's subjective goals. Besides these crucial differences, both types of decisions also have in common that uncertain information about the choice situation has to be processed before a decision can be made. The present work aims to acknowledge the commonalities of both types of decision making to lay bare the crucial differences. For this aim we examine perceptual and preferential decisions with a novel choice paradigm that uses the identical stimulus material for both types of decisions. This paradigm allows us to model the decisions and response times of both types of decisions with the same sequential sampling model, the drift diffusion model. The results illustrate that the different incentive structure in both types of tasks changes people's behavior so that they process information more efficiently and respond more cautiously in the perceptual as compared to the preferential task. These findings set out a perspective for further integration of perceptual and preferential decision making in a single ramework.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Risky choice; Sequential sampling models; Value based decisions

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26432714     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-015-0941-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  32 in total

1.  Estimating parameters of the diffusion model: approaches to dealing with contaminant reaction times and parameter variability.

Authors:  Roger Ratcliff; Francis Tuerlinckx
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2002-09

2.  The analysis of visual motion: a comparison of neuronal and psychophysical performance.

Authors:  K H Britten; M N Shadlen; W T Newsome; J A Movshon
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Loss aversion and inhibition in dynamical models of multialternative choice.

Authors:  Marius Usher; James L McClelland
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 8.934

4.  Decisions in changing conditions: the urgency-gating model.

Authors:  Paul Cisek; Geneviève Aude Puskas; Stephany El-Murr
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2009-09-16       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Task-related versus stimulus-specific practice.

Authors:  Gilles Dutilh; Angelos-Miltiadis Krypotos; Eric-Jan Wagenmakers
Journal:  Exp Psychol       Date:  2011

6.  Using diffusion models to understand clinical disorders.

Authors:  Corey N White; Roger Ratcliff; Michael W Vasey; Gail McKoon
Journal:  J Math Psychol       Date:  2010-02-01       Impact factor: 2.223

7.  The hare and the tortoise: emphasizing speed can change the evidence used to make decisions.

Authors:  Babette Rae; Andrew Heathcote; Chris Donkin; Lee Averell; Scott Brown
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2014-05-05       Impact factor: 3.051

8.  Conservatism in a simple probability inference task.

Authors:  L D Phillips; W Edwards
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1966-09

9.  Rapid decisions from experience.

Authors:  Matthew D Zeigenfuse; Timothy J Pleskac; Taosheng Liu
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2014-02-16

10.  Practice effects in large-scale visual word recognition studies: a lexical decision study on 14,000 dutch mono- and disyllabic words and nonwords.

Authors:  Emmanuel Keuleers; Kevin Diependaele; Marc Brysbaert
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2010-11-18
View more
  14 in total

1.  Value-based attentional capture affects multi-alternative decision making.

Authors:  Sebastian Gluth; Mikhail S Spektor; Jörg Rieskamp
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2018-11-05       Impact factor: 8.140

2.  No effect of birth order on adult risk taking.

Authors:  Tomás Lejarraga; Renato Frey; Daniel D Schnitzlein; Ralph Hertwig
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-03-11       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Trading mental effort for confidence in the metacognitive control of value-based decision-making.

Authors:  Douglas G Lee; Jean Daunizeau
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2021-04-26       Impact factor: 8.140

4.  Are you confident enough to act? Individual differences in action control are associated with post-decisional metacognitive bias.

Authors:  Wojciech Zajkowski; Maksymilian Bielecki; Magdalena Marszał-Wiśniewska
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-06-01       Impact factor: 3.752

5.  Value-based decision making under uncertainty in hoarding and obsessive- compulsive disorders.

Authors:  Helen Pushkarskaya; David Tolin; Lital Ruderman; Daniel Henick; J MacLaren Kelly; Christopher Pittenger; Ifat Levy
Journal:  Psychiatry Res       Date:  2017-08-24       Impact factor: 3.222

6.  Efficient sampling and noisy decisions.

Authors:  Joseph A Heng; Michael Woodford; Rafael Polania
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2020-09-15       Impact factor: 8.140

7.  A new model of decision processing in instrumental learning tasks.

Authors:  Steven Miletić; Russell J Boag; Anne C Trutti; Niek Stevenson; Birte U Forstmann; Andrew Heathcote
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2021-01-27       Impact factor: 8.140

8.  How top-down and bottom-up attention modulate risky choice.

Authors:  Yonatan Vanunu; Jared M Hotaling; Mike E Le Pelley; Ben R Newell
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-09-28       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Biased and unbiased perceptual decision-making on vocal emotions.

Authors:  Mihai Dricu; Leonardo Ceravolo; Didier Grandjean; Sascha Frühholz
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-11-24       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Risk preference shares the psychometric structure of major psychological traits.

Authors:  Renato Frey; Andreas Pedroni; Rui Mata; Jörg Rieskamp; Ralph Hertwig
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2017-10-04       Impact factor: 14.136

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.