The Dual‐process Drift Diffusion Model: Evidence From Response Times

Abstract

We introduce a model of response time and choice that borrows from two distinct psychological traditions. As in dual-process models, rapid (automatic) decisions are qualitatively different from considered decisions. As in the drift diffusion model, delayed (considered) decisions occur when confidence hits a threshold level. We conduct a simple experiment in which our hybrid model matches key properties of the data. As our model predicts, decision times are bimodal, automatic decisions are of far lower quality than considered decisions, and automatic decisions are more prevalent when prior information improves, thereby raising their quality. (JEL D83, D87, C91)

Use of Response Time for Measuring Cognitive Ability

“…More generally, there may be more useful applications for factors identified from information processing parameter analysis, such as from the ex-Gaussian function and the diffusion model. These include applications beyond traditional testing, for example, for decision making in behavioral economics [87]. Findings in the literature thus far [69,83] are suggestive, but further, larger-scale analyses are necessary to establish the importance of such parameters in models of human abilities and in large-scale assessments.…”

Dual random utility maximisation

“…Interesting examples of this kind of binary heterogeneity are when the population is split, in unknown proportions, into high and low cognitive ability, strategic and non-strategic, 'fast and slow' or 'instinctive and contemplative' types (e.g. Caplin and Martin [4]; Gill and Prowse [17]; Proto, Rustichini and Sofianos [31]; Rubinstein [33], [34]). Such binary classifications are natural and widespread.…”

“…4 Normativity vs selfishness. Many situations of choice present a conflict between a 'normative' mode and a 'selfish' mode of decision.…”

“…This conflict is both introspectively clear and consistent with experimental observations, for example in dictator 2 Eliaz and Spiegler [11] do not focus on characterisation but rather explore the rich implications of this probabilistic notion of naivete in a contract-theoretic framework, where a principal chooses the optimal menu of contracs to offer to partially naive agents. 3 Caplin and Martin [4] are distinctive in that they consider agents who can choose whether to make automatic (fast) or considered (slow) choices, depending on an attentional cost. 4 de Clippel and Eliaz [8] propose a dual-self model that can be thought of as a model of intra-household bargaining.…”

“…3 Caplin and Martin [4] are distinctive in that they consider agents who can choose whether to make automatic (fast) or considered (slow) choices, depending on an attentional cost. 4 de Clippel and Eliaz [8] propose a dual-self model that can be thought of as a model of intra-household bargaining. Interestingly, this model exhibits the attraction and compromise effects that we study later in the paper.…”