The Attentional Drift-Diffusion Model Extends to Simple Purchasing Decisions

Krajbich, Ian; Lu, Daqi; Camerer, Colin F.; Rangel, Antonio

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00193

Cited by 301 publications

(331 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

300

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It extends multiattribute models of consumer decision-making in economics (8-10), psychology (11)(12)(13), and marketing (14,15) to both charitable giving and motivation crowding-out contexts. In addition, the proposed role of donor mindsets extends previous literature in psychology (16,17) by suggesting that these mindset effects may be mediated by saliency and attention.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One commonly cited theory (6,7) suggests that gifts reduce the donation's ability to act as a self-signal of altruism, thus reducing motivation to donate. Alternatively, attention-based multiattribute choice models (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15) predict that individuals overweight salient attributes and underweight shrouded attributes when making choices. If the thankyou gift is a particularly salient attribute, this may cause the donor to underweight less salient intrinsic motives such as altruism, potentially leading to lower motivation to donate.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Demotivating incentives and motivation crowding out in charitable giving

Chao

2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research has shown that extrinsic incentives can crowd out intrinsic motivation in many contexts. Despite this, many nonprofits offer conditional thank-you gifts, such as mugs or tote bags, in exchange for donations. In collaboration with a nonprofit, this study implements a direct mail field experiment and demonstrates that thank-you gifts reduced donation rates in a fundraising campaign. Attention-based multiattribute choice models suggest that this is because prospective donors shift attention to the salient gift offer, causing them to underweight less salient intrinsic motives. Attention to the gift may also cause individuals to adopt a more cost-benefit mindset, further de-emphasizing intrinsic motives. Consistent with these hypotheses, crowding out was driven by those who donated higher amounts in the previous year (i.e., those who likely had higher intrinsic motivation). In a complementary online experiment, thank-you gifts also reduced donation rates but only when the gift was visually salient. This corroborates the mediating role of attention in crowding out. Taken together, the laboratory and field results demonstrate that this fundraising technique can be demotivating in some contexts and that this may occur through an attention-based mechanism.motivation crowding out | charitable giving | multiattribute choice | attention | saliency

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Demotivating incentives and motivation crowding out in charitable giving

Chao

2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2), consumer purchasing decisions, and temporal discounting decisions (Krajbich, Armel and Rangel 2010;Krajbich and Rangel 2011;Krajbich et al 2012). In several of these studies visual attention was also incorporated into the DDM and it was shown that there is a reliable correspondence between gaze time and choices.…”

Section: Drift-diffusion Model Of Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

Benefits of Neuroeconomic Modeling: New Policy Interventions and Predictors of Preference

Krajbich

Oud

Fehr

2014

American Economic Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neuroeconomics aims at providing a detailed computational and neurobiological account of the decision-making process that will serve as a foundation for a better understanding of human behavior and well-being (Fehr and Rangel 2011). This means that data such as neural activity, response times (RT), and eye movements play an important role in this research program.However, much opposition to neuroeconomics has centered on the idea that standard economic theory makes no predictions about non-choice data. This stems from a long-held reluctance among economists to model the process of decision-making and to instead focus only on its outcome, namely the resulting choice. To address this, recent neuroeconomic models have sought to demonstrate the usefulness of jointly relating choice frequencies and process measures to underlying latent valuations. Here we show, in particular, that (i) neuroeconomic driftdiffusion models (DDMs) yield new -empirically validated -insights into the potential suboptimalities of individual decision-making that can be mitigated with novel policy interventions, and (ii) that the time it takes to make decisions provides an informative signal about people's preferences. Thus, additional measures related to the choice process can be useful for both positive and normative economics. Overall, we use the DDM to make a general point that there is substantial value to jointly modeling choices and other process measures, even if a researcher is only concerned with choices.The problem that the DDM addresses is that of stochastic choice. Inconsistent choice behavior is well documented and necessitates the use of probabilistic approaches such as logistic choice models (Luce 1959), random utility theory (McFadden 1973), and Quantal Response Equilibria (McKelvey and Palfrey 1995). Some have argued that such probabilistic behavior is still utilitymaximizing behavior and that it only appears noisy due to unobserved characteristics of the

show abstract

“…This model [the attentional DDM (aDDM)] has been shown to accurately model choices and mean reaction times in two-and three-alternative economic decisions (6,8,9). This model clearly shows how fixation durations and fixation sequences affect choices.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Simultaneous modeling of visual saliency and value computation improves predictions of economic choice

Towal¹,

Mormann

Koch

2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

221

245

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many decisions we make require visually identifying and evaluating numerous alternatives quickly. These usually vary in reward, or value, and in low-level visual properties, such as saliency. Both saliency and value influence the final decision. In particular, saliency affects fixation locations and durations, which are predictive of choices. However, it is unknown how saliency propagates to the final decision. Moreover, the relative influence of saliency and value is unclear. Here we address these questions with an integrated model that combines a perceptual decision process about where and when to look with an economic decision process about what to choose. The perceptual decision process is modeled as a driftdiffusion model (DDM) process for each alternative. Using psychophysical data from a multiple-alternative, forced-choice task, in which subjects have to pick one food item from a crowded display via eye movements, we test four models where each DDM process is driven by (i) saliency or (ii) value alone or (iii) an additive or (iv) a multiplicative combination of both. We find that models including both saliency and value weighted in a one-third to two-thirds ratio (saliency-to-value) significantly outperform models based on either quantity alone. These eye fixation patterns modulate an economic decision process, also described as a DDM process driven by value. Our combined model quantitatively explains fixation patterns and choices with similar or better accuracy than previous models, suggesting that visual saliency has a smaller, but significant, influence than value and that saliency affects choices indirectly through perceptual decisions that modulate economic decisions.search | multiple targets | eye tracking | preference | attention O ne important goal of neuroscience and economics is to understand the computational mechanisms that underlie decision making between multiple alternatives. Interestingly, this goal has proceeded along two seemingly parallel paths that consider either perceptual decision making, namely decisions about perceptual properties of alternatives, or economic decision making, which considers the value of alternatives (1). Although these types of decisions can be constructed to be mutually exclusive in the laboratory, in more natural contexts, decisions nearly always involve perceptual decisions about how to sample information and value-based decisions about which alternatives are more valuable. Importantly, however, very little attention has been paid to how perceptual and economic decision processes may interact. One recent paper reported a visual saliency bias where, independent of consumer preferences, visually salient options are more likely to be chosen than less salient alternatives. It is not clear, however, which mechanism gives rise to this effect or how perceptual processes interact with economic choices (2).Choices and reaction times during perceptual decision making have been accurately modeled by stochastic accumulator models such as the drift-diffusion model (DDM) (3...

show abstract

The Attentional Drift-Diffusion Model Extends to Simple Purchasing Decisions

Cited by 301 publications

References 58 publications

Demotivating incentives and motivation crowding out in charitable giving

Demotivating incentives and motivation crowding out in charitable giving

Benefits of Neuroeconomic Modeling: New Policy Interventions and Predictors of Preference

Simultaneous modeling of visual saliency and value computation improves predictions of economic choice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About