Literature DB >> 29658730

A dynamic dual process model of risky decision making.

Adele Diederich1, Jennifer S Trueblood2.   

Abstract

Many phenomena in judgment and decision making are often attributed to the interaction of 2 systems of reasoning. Although these so-called dual process theories can explain many types of behavior, they are rarely formalized as mathematical or computational models. Rather, dual process models are typically verbal theories, which are difficult to conclusively evaluate or test. In the cases in which formal (i.e., mathematical) dual process models have been proposed, they have not been quantitatively fit to experimental data and are often silent when it comes to the timing of the 2 systems. In the current article, we present a dynamic dual process model framework of risky decision making that provides an account of the timing and interaction of the 2 systems and can explain both choice and response-time data. We outline several predictions of the model, including how changes in the timing of the 2 systems as well as time pressure can influence behavior. The framework also allows us to explore different assumptions about how preferences are constructed by the 2 systems as well as the dynamic interaction of the 2 systems. In particular, we examine 3 different possible functional forms of the 2 systems and 2 possible ways the systems can interact (simultaneously or serially). We compare these dual process models with 2 single process models using risky decision making data from Guo, Trueblood, and Diederich (2017). Using this data, we find that 1 of the dual process models significantly outperforms the other models in accounting for both choices and response times. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29658730     DOI: 10.1037/rev0000087

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Rev        ISSN: 0033-295X            Impact factor:   8.934


  12 in total

1.  Automatic biases in intertemporal choice.

Authors:  Wenjia Joyce Zhao; Adele Diederich; Jennifer S Trueblood; Sudeep Bhatia
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2019-04

Review 2.  Affect and Decision Making: Insights and Predictions from Computational Models.

Authors:  Ian D Roberts; Cendri A Hutcherson
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2019-05-16       Impact factor: 20.229

3.  Time to Pay Attention? Information Search Explains Amplified Framing Effects Under Time Pressure.

Authors:  Ian D Roberts; Yi Yang Teoh; Cendri A Hutcherson
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2021-12-03

Review 4.  Second verse, same as the first: learning generalizable relational concepts through functional repetition.

Authors:  Eduardo Mercado; Allison Scagel
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2022-10-12       Impact factor: 2.899

Review 5.  PrEP Product Acceptability and Dual Process Decision-Making Among Men Who Have Sex with Men.

Authors:  José A Bauermeister; Julie S Downs; Douglas S Krakower
Journal:  Curr HIV/AIDS Rep       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 5.071

6.  Attentional priorities drive effects of time pressure on altruistic choice.

Authors:  Yi Yang Teoh; Ziqing Yao; William A Cunningham; Cendri A Hutcherson
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2020-07-15       Impact factor: 14.919

7.  On the Irrationality of Being in Two Minds.

Authors:  Shahram Dehdashti; Lauren Fell; Peter Bruza
Journal:  Entropy (Basel)       Date:  2020-02-04       Impact factor: 2.524

8.  Individual optimization of risky decisions in duration and distance estimations.

Authors:  Robbert van der Mijn; Atser Damsma; Niels Taatgen; Hedderik van Rijn
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2020-12-29       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  Qualitative development and content validation of the "SPART" model; a focused ethnography study of observable diagnostic and therapeutic activities in the emergency medical services care process.

Authors:  Bert Dercksen; Michel M R F Struys; Fokie Cnossen; Wolter Paans
Journal:  BMC Emerg Med       Date:  2021-11-13

10.  Response time models separate single- and dual-process accounts of memory-based decisions.

Authors:  Peter M Kraemer; Laura Fontanesi; Mikhail S Spektor; Sebastian Gluth
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2021-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.