Looking and Weighting in Judgment and Choice

Wedell, Douglas H.; Senter, Stuart M.

doi:10.1006/obhd.1997.2692

Cited by 54 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This dissociation suggests that the bias in dwell duration and the dwell frequency bias might index independent aspects of visual decision making. This dissociation provides support for frameworks of decision making which postulate multiple stages, processes, or strategies (e.g., Payne, 1976;Payne, Bettman, Coupey, & Johnson, 1992;Russo & Leclerc, 1994;Senter & Wedell, 1999;Wedell & Senter, 1997;see Ford, Schmitt, Schechtman, Hults, & Doherty, 1989, for a review). Our finding of gaze bias in dwell duration but not in dwell frequency early in the trial might reflect the operation of an early screening stage, where items are quickly encoded and the set of potentially relevant alternatives is reduced.…”

Section: Looking Preferencementioning

confidence: 85%

Stimulus exposure and gaze bias: A further test of the gaze cascade model

Glaholt

Reingold

2009

Attention, Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Looking Preferencementioning

confidence: 85%

Stimulus exposure and gaze bias: A further test of the gaze cascade model

Glaholt

Reingold

2009

Attention, Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The range-weighting hypothesis, however, would need some modification to explain why phantom decoy effects occur in choice but not judgment. One such modification derives from the well-documented finding that choice is more lexicographic than judgment (Tversky, Sattath, & Slovic, 1988;Wedell & Senter, 1997). Thus, while range extension may result in only a moderate increase in the corresponding weight of that dimension in judgment, it might lead to a much greater increase in weight for choice, as participants tend to weight attributes less evenly in choice.…”

Section: Explanations For the Phantom Decoy Effectmentioning

confidence: 92%

Testing alternative explanations of phantom decoy effects

Pettibone

Wedell

2007

Behavioral Decision Making

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phantom decoys are alternatives that asymmetrically dominate a targeted alternative and yet lead to increased selection of the target when the decoy is declared to be unavailable. This effect is difficult to explain within most standard theoretical accounts of decoy effects. The current experiments tested between three explanations of this effect: (1) the relative advantage model based on loss aversion, (2) similarity substitution, and (3) range weighting. In Experiment 1, participants were presented trinary choice sets, with half of the sets containing a phantom decoy in one of five possible locations within the attribute space. Phantom decoy effects were robust across all decoy locations but one, and the pattern of effects most closely corresponded to predictions of the relative advantage model. Experiment 2 used a within-subjects manipulation of the five phantom decoy locations. The overall pattern of effects most closely corresponded to predictions from the relative advantage model, as did the pattern for the group of participants who exhibited the strongest phantom decoy effects.

show abstract

“…In contrast, in multi-alternative decisions which define a larger decision space, deep encoding of the alternatives may not always be possible given the limited information processing capacity of the decision maker. As a result, the decision maker might engage in a 'screening' process where weak alternatives are subject to shallow processing and may be excluded from further processing while promising alternatives are processed to a greater extent (Beach, 1993;Russo & Leclerc, 1994;Senter & Wedell, 1999;Wedell & Senter, 1997). Thus, for given decision task, a manipulation that increases the number of decision alternatives would be expected to increase the degree of selectivity with which decision makers process the decision information.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Evidence for top-down control of eye movements during visual decision making

Glaholt

Reingold

2010

Journal of Vision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Participants' eye movements were monitored while they viewed displays containing 6 exemplars from one of several categories of everyday items (belts, sunglasses, shirts, shoes), with a column of 3 items presented on the left and another column of 3 items presented on the right side of the display. Participants were either required to choose which of the two sets of 3 items was the most expensive (2-AFC) or which of the 6 items was the most expensive (6-AFC). Importantly, the stimulus display, and the relevant stimulus dimension, were held constant across conditions. Consistent with the hypothesis of top-down control of eye movements during visual decision making, we documented greater selectivity in the processing of stimulus information in the 6-AFC than the 2-AFC decision. In addition, strong spatial biases in looking behavior were demonstrated, but these biases were largely insensitive to the instructional manipulation, and did not substantially influence participants' choices.

show abstract

Looking and Weighting in Judgment and Choice

Cited by 54 publications

References 24 publications

Stimulus exposure and gaze bias: A further test of the gaze cascade model

Stimulus exposure and gaze bias: A further test of the gaze cascade model

Testing alternative explanations of phantom decoy effects

Evidence for top-down control of eye movements during visual decision making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About