Beyond discrete-choice options.

While decision theories have evolved over the past five decades, their focus has largely been on choices among a limited number of discrete options, even though many real-world situations have a continuous-option space. Recently, theories have attempted to address decisions with continuous-option spaces, and several computational models have been proposed within the sequential sampling framework to explain how we make a decision in continuous-option space. This article aims to review the main attempts to understand decisions on continuous-option spaces, give an overview of applications of these types of decisions, and present puzzles to be addressed by future developments.

Absolute and relative stability of loss aversion across contexts.

Individuals' decisions under risk tend to be in line with the notion that "losses loom larger than gains." This loss aversion in decision making is commonly understood as a stable individual preference that is manifested across different contexts. The presumed stability and generality, which underlies the prominence of loss aversion in the literature at large, has been recently questioned by studies reporting how loss aversion can disappear, and even reverse, as a function of the choice context. The present study investigated whether loss aversion reflects a trait-like attitude of avoiding losses or rather individuals' adaptability to different contexts. We report three experiments investigating the within-subject context sensitivity of loss aversion in a two-alternative forced-choice task. Our results show that the choice context can shift people's loss aversion, though somewhat inconsistently. Moreover, individual estimates of loss aversion are shown to have a considerable degree of stability. Altogether, these results indicate that even though the absolute value of loss aversion can be affected by external factors such as the choice context, estimates of people's loss aversion still capture the relative dispositions toward gains and losses across individuals. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

The link between cognitive abilities and risk preference depends on measurement.

Risk preference is an important construct for understanding individual differences in risk taking throughout the behavioral sciences. An active stream of research has focused on better understanding risk preference through its connection to other psychological constructs, in particular, cognitive abilities. Here, we examine two large-scale multimethod data sets and demonstrate that the method used to measure risk preference is an important moderator. In self-report measures, we found small but consistent positive correlations between working memory capacity/numeracy, facets of cognitive abilities, and risk tolerance. In behavioral measures, we found, on average, no correlation and large intermethod heterogeneity. This heterogeneity can be explained by the choice architecture that is created in behavioral methods-in particular, the relation between risk and reward and the impact of decision error in a task. Consequently, investigating how risk preference relates to psychological constructs such as cognitive abilities require a profound understanding of the choice architecture in measurements of risk preference and in the real world.

Testing three coping strategies for time pressure in categorizations and similarity judgments.

This article compares three psychological mechanisms to make multi-attribute inferences under time pressure in the domains of categorization and similarity judgments. Specifically, we test if people under time pressure attend to fewer object features (attention focus), if they respond less precisely (lower choice sensitivity), or if they simplify a psychological similarity function (simplified similarity). The simpler psychological similarity considers the number of matching features but ignores the actual feature value differences. We conducted three experiments (two of them preregistered) in which we manipulated time pressure: one was a categorization task, which was designed based on optimal experimental design principles, and the other two involved a similarity judgment task. Computational cognitive modeling following an exemplar-similarity framework showed that the behavior of most participants under time pressure is in line with a lower choice sensitivity, this means less precise response selection, especially when people make similarity judgments. We find that the variability of participants' behavior increases with time pressure, to a point where participants are unlikely to make inferences anymore but instead start choosing readily available response options repeatedly. These findings are consistent with related research in other cognitive domains, such as risky choices, and add to growing evidence that time pressure and other forms of cognitive load do not necessarily alter core cognitive processes themselves but rather affect the precision of response selection.

A robust Bayesian test for identifying context effects in multiattribute decision-making.

Research on multiattribute decision-making has repeatedly shown that people's preferences for options depend on the set of other options they are presented with, that is, the choice context. As a result, recent years have seen the development of a number of psychological theories explaining context effects. However, much less attention has been given to the statistical analyses of context effects. Traditionally, context effects are measured as a change in preference for a target option across two different choice sets (the so-called relative choice share of the target, or RST). We first show that the frequently used definition of the RST measure has some weaknesses and should be replaced by a more appropriate definition that we provide. We then show through a large-scale simulation that the RST measure as previously defined can lead to biased inferences. As an alternative, we suggest a Bayesian approach to estimating an accurate RST measure that is robust to various circumstances. We applied the two approaches to the data of five published studies (total participants, N = 738), some of which used the biased approach. Additionally, we introduce the absolute choice share of the target (or AST) as the appropriate measure for the attraction effect. Our approach is an example of evaluating and proposing proper statistical tests for axiomatic principles of decision-making. After applying the AST and the robust RST to published studies, we found qualitatively different results in at least one-fourth of the cases. These results highlight the importance of utilizing robust statistical tests as a foundation for the development of new psychological theories.

Cognitive abilities affect decision errors but not risk preferences: A meta-analysis.

When making risky decisions, people should evaluate the consequences and the chances of the outcome occurring. We examine the risk-preference hypothesis, which states that people's cognitive abilities affect their evaluation of choice options and consequently their risk-taking behavior. We compared the risk-preference hypothesis against a parsimonious error hypothesis, which states that lower cognitive abilities increase decision errors. Increased decision errors can be misinterpreted as more risk-seeking behavior because in most risk-taking tasks, random choice behavior is often misclassified as risk-seeking behavior. We tested these two competing hypotheses against each other with a systematic literature review and a Bayesian meta-analysis summarizing the empirical correlations. Results based on 30 studies and 62 effect sizes revealed no credible association between cognitive abilities and risk aversion. Apparent correlations between cognitive abilities and risk aversion can be explained by biased risk-preference-elicitation tasks, where more errors are misinterpreted as specific risk preferences. In sum, the reported associations between cognitive abilities and risk preferences are spurious and mediated by a misinterpretation of erroneous choice behavior. This result also has general implications for any research area in which treatment effects, such as decreased cognitive attention or motivation, could increase decision errors and be misinterpreted as specific preference changes.

Mine or ours? Neural basis of the exploitation of common-pool resources.

Why do people often exhaust unregulated common (shared) natural resources but manage to preserve similar private resources? To answer this question, in this study we combine a neurobiological, economic and cognitive modeling approach. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging on 50 participants, we show that a sharp decrease of common and private resources is associated with deactivation of the ventral striatum, a brain region involved in the valuation of outcomes. Across individuals, when facing a common resource, ventral striatal activity is anticorrelated with resource preservation (less harvesting), whereas with private resources the opposite pattern is observed. This indicates that neural value signals distinctly modulate behavior in response to the depletion of common vs private resources. Computational modeling suggested that overharvesting of common resources was facilitated by the modulatory effect of social comparison on value signals. These results provide an explanation of people's tendency to over-exploit unregulated common natural resources.

Empirical underidentification in estimating random utility models: The role of choice sets and standardizations.

A standard approach to distinguishing people's risk preferences is to estimate a random utility model using a power utility function to characterize the preferences and a logit function to capture choice consistency. We demonstrate that with often-used choice situations, this model suffers from empirical underidentification, meaning that parameters cannot be estimated precisely. With simulations of estimation accuracy and Kullback-Leibler divergence measures we examined factors that potentially mitigate this problem. First, using a choice set that guarantees a switch in the utility order between two risky gambles in the range of plausible values leads to higher estimation accuracy than randomly created choice sets or the purpose-built choice sets common in the literature. Second, parameter estimates are regularly correlated, which contributes to empirical underidentification. Examining standardizations of the utility scale, we show that they mitigate this correlation and additionally improve the estimation accuracy for choice consistency. Yet, they can have detrimental effects on the estimation accuracy of risk preference. Finally, we also show how repeated versus distinct choice sets and an increase in observations affect estimation accuracy. Together, these results should help researchers make informed design choices to estimate parameters in the random utility model more precisely.

The influence of sample size on preferences from experience.

People often learn from experience about the distribution of outcomes of risky options. Typically, people draw small samples, when they can actively sample information from risky gambles to make decisions. We examine how the size of the sample that people experience in decision from experience affects their preferences between risky options. In two studies (N = 40 each), we manipulated the size of samples that people could experience from risky gambles and measured subjective selling prices and the confidence in selling price judgements after sampling. The results show that, on average, sample size influenced neither the selling prices nor confidence. However, cognitive modelling of individual-level learning showed that around half of the participants could be classified as Bayesian learners, whereas the other half adhered to a frequentist learning strategy and that if learning was cognitively simpler more participants adhered to the latter. The observed selling prices of Bayesian learners changed with sample size as predicted by Bayesian principles, whereas sample size affected the judgements of frequentist learners much less. These results illustrate the variability in how people learn from sampled information and provide an explanation for why sample size often does not affect judgements.

Consensus-based guidance for conducting and reporting multi-analyst studies.

Any large dataset can be analyzed in a number of ways, and it is possible that the use of different analysis strategies will lead to different results and conclusions. One way to assess whether the results obtained depend on the analysis strategy chosen is to employ multiple analysts and leave each of them free to follow their own approach. Here, we present consensus-based guidance for conducting and reporting such multi-analyst studies, and we discuss how broader adoption of the multi-analyst approach has the potential to strengthen the robustness of results and conclusions obtained from analyses of datasets in basic and applied research.

The similarity-updating model of probability judgment and belief revision.

People often take nondiagnostic information into account when revising their beliefs. A probability judgment decreases due to nondiagnostic information represents the well-established "dilution effect" observed in many domains. Surprisingly, the opposite of the dilution effect called the "confirmation effect" has also been observed frequently. The present work provides a unified cognitive model that allows both effects to be explained simultaneously. The suggested similarity-updating model incorporates two psychological components: first, a similarity-based judgment inspired by categorization research, and second, a weighting-and-adding process with an adjustment following a similarity-based confirmation mechanism. Four experimental studies demonstrate the model's predictive accuracy for probability judgments and belief revision. The participants received a sample of information from one of two options and had to judge from which option the information came. The similarity-updating model predicts that the probability judgment is a function of the similarity of the sample to the options. When one is presented with a new sample, the previous probability judgment is updated with a second probability judgment by taking a weighted average of the two and adjusting the result according to a similarity-based confirmation. The model describes people's probability judgments well and outcompetes a Bayesian cognitive model and an alternative probability-theory-plus-noise model. The similarity-updating model accounts for several qualitative findings, namely, dilution effects, confirmation effects, order effects, and the finding that probability judgments are invariant to sample size. In sum, the similarity-updating model provides a plausible account of human probability judgment and belief revision. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

The influence of visual attention on memory-based preferential choice.

Many decisions rely on past experiences. Recent research indicates that people's choices are biased towards choosing better-remembered options, even if these options are comparatively unattractive (i.e., a memory bias). In the current study, we used eye tracking to compare the influence of visual attention on preferential choice between memory-based and non-memory-based decisions. Participants completed the remember-and-decide task. In this task, they first learned associations between screen locations and snack items. Then, they made binary choices between snack items. These snacks were either hidden and required recall (memory-based decisions), or they were visible (non-memory-based decisions). Remarkably, choices were more strongly influenced by attention in memory-based compared to non-memory-based decisions. However, visual attention did not mediate the memory bias on preferential choices. Finally, we adopt and expand a recently proposed computational model to provide a comprehensive description of the role of attention in memory-based decisions. In sum, the present work elucidates how visual attention interacts with episodic memory and preference formation in memory-based decisions.

Brain-Behavior Associations for Risk Taking Depend on the Measures Used to Capture Individual Differences.

Maladaptive risk taking can have severe individual and societal consequences; thus, individual differences are prominent targets for intervention and prevention. Although brain activation has been shown to be associated with individual differences in risk taking, the directionality of the reported brain-behavior associations is less clear. Here, we argue that one aspect contributing to the mixed results is the low convergence between risk-taking measures, especially between the behavioral tasks used to elicit neural functional markers. To address this question, we analyzed within-participant neuroimaging data for two widely used risk-taking tasks collected from the imaging subsample of the Basel-Berlin Risk Study (N = 116 young human adults). Focusing on core brain regions implicated in risk taking (nucleus accumbens, anterior insula, and anterior cingulate cortex), for the two tasks, we examined group-level activation for risky versus safe choices, as well as associations between local functional markers and various risk-related outcomes, including psychometrically derived risk preference factors. While we observed common group-level activation in the two tasks (notably increased nucleus accumbens activation), individual differences analyses support the idea that the presence and directionality of associations between brain activation and risk taking varies as a function of the risk-taking measures used to capture individual differences. Our results have methodological implications for the use of brain markers for intervention or prevention.

Stress-related changes in financial risk taking: Considering joint effects of cortisol and affect.

Many decisions under risk and uncertainty are made under physical or emotional stress. A recent meta-analysis suggested that stress reliably influences risk taking but did not find a relation between single measures of stress such as cortisol and risk taking. One reason for the conflicting findings could be that the influence of stress on risk taking depends not only on physiological but also on psychological stress responses, in particular affective valence. We tested this hypothesis in an exploratory empirical study: Seventy participants worked on a financial risk-taking task. In half of the participants acute stress was induced with a cold pressor task. For all participants we measured cortisol and α-amylase levels, blood pressure, subjective arousal, and affective valence before and after the task. The stress induction increased participants' levels of cortisol, subjective arousal, and systolic blood pressure but did not directly influence negative affect or risky decision making. Examining the interplay between physiological and psychological stress responses, a moderation analysis revealed an interaction between stress induction and affect valence: Negative affect predicted an increase in risk-seeking decision making in the stress condition, but not in the control group. A similar moderation was found with cortisol reactivity, that is, negative affect predicted an increase in risk-seeking decision making in participants with high cortisol reactivity but not in participants with low cortisol reactivity. These results suggest that the effect of stress on risky decision making depends on the interplay of affective valence and cortisol reactivity.

Competitive retrieval strategy causes multimodal response distributions in multiple-cue judgments.

Research on quantitative judgments from multiple cues suggests that judgments are simultaneously influenced by previously abstracted knowledge about cue-criterion relations and memories of past instances (or exemplars). Yet extant judgment theories leave 2 questions unanswered: (a) How are past exemplars and abstracted cue knowledge combined to form a judgment? (b) Are all past exemplars retrieved from memory to form the judgment (integrative retrieval) or is the judgment based on one exemplar (competitive retrieval)? To address these questions we propose and test a new model, CX-COM (combining Cue abstraction with eXemplar memory assuming COMpetitive memory retrieval). In a first step, CX-COM recalls only a single exemplar from memory. In a second step, the initially retrieved judgment is adjusted based on abstracted cue knowledge. Qualitatively, we show that CX-COM naturally captures judgment patterns that have been previously attributed to multiple strategies. Next, we tested CX-COM quantitatively in 2 experiments and found that it accounts well for people's judgment behavior. In the second experiment we additionally tested 2 qualitative predictions of CX-COM: The existence of multimodal response distributions within participants and systematic variability in judgments depending on the distance between similar exemplars in memory. The empirical results confirm CX-COM's assumptions. In sum, the evidence suggests that CX-COM is a viable new model for quantitative judgments and shows the importance of considering judgment variability in addition to average responses in judgment research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

A reinforcement learning diffusion decision model for value-based decisions.

Psychological models of value-based decision-making describe how subjective values are formed and mapped to single choices. Recently, additional efforts have been made to describe the temporal dynamics of these processes by adopting sequential sampling models from the perceptual decision-making tradition, such as the diffusion decision model (DDM). These models, when applied to value-based decision-making, allow mapping of subjective values not only to choices but also to response times. However, very few attempts have been made to adapt these models to situations in which decisions are followed by rewards, thereby producing learning effects. In this study, we propose a new combined reinforcement learning diffusion decision model (RLDDM) and test it on a learning task in which pairs of options differ with respect to both value difference and overall value. We found that participants became more accurate and faster with learning, responded faster and more accurately when options had more dissimilar values, and decided faster when confronted with more attractive (i.e., overall more valuable) pairs of options. We demonstrate that the suggested RLDDM can accommodate these effects and does so better than previously proposed models. To gain a better understanding of the model dynamics, we also compare it to standard DDMs and reinforcement learning models. Our work is a step forward towards bridging the gap between two traditions of decision-making research.

How similarity between choice options affects decisions from experience: The accentuation-of-differences model.

Traditional theories of decision making require that humans evaluate choice options independently of each other. The independence principle underlying this notion states that the relative choice probability of two options should be independent of the choice set. Previous research demonstrated systematic violations of this principle in decisions from description (context effects), leading to the development of various models explaining them. Yet, the cognitive processes underlying multi-alternative decisions from experience remain unclear. Furthermore, it is not known whether context effects also occur in such decisions, and existing learning models do not predict them. In three experiments, the similarity effect, compromise effect, and attraction effect were explored in a 3-armed bandit task with full feedback. Participants' behavior systematically violated the independence principle, although mostly not in line with past context-effect patterns in decisions from description. The observed similarity effect and the reversals of the compromise and the attraction effects can be explained by a similarity mechanism, according to which options with similar outcomes appear less attractive. We propose the accentuation-of-differences model that relies on this mechanism. We further validated the model in a fourth experiment in which we demonstrated a new violation of independence, the accentuation effect. Across all experiments, the model outperformed traditional reinforcement-learning models in describing the observed findings. Finally, the model's generalizability was confirmed using the Iowa gambling task. In summary, the present work is the first to demonstrate systematic violations of the independence principle in various decisions-from-experience designs and to offer a model to explain the observed phenomena. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Cognitive and Neural Bases of Multi-Attribute, Multi-Alternative, Value-based Decisions.

Researchers have benefited from characterizing evidence-based decision making as a process involving sequential sampling. More recently, sequential sampling models have been applied to value-based decisions - decisions that involve examining preferences for multi-attribute, multi-alternative choices. The application of sequential sampling models to value-based decisions has helped researchers to account for the context effects associated with preferential choice tasks. However, for these models to predict choice preferences, more complex decision mechanisms have had to be introduced. We review here the complex decision mechanisms necessary to account for context effects found with multi-attribute, multi-alternative choices. In addition, we review linkages between these more complex processes and their neural substrates to develop a comprehensive and biologically plausible account of human value-based decision making.

The Quality of Response Time Data Inference: A Blinded, Collaborative Assessment of the Validity of Cognitive Models.

Most data analyses rely on models. To complement statistical models, psychologists have developed cognitive models, which translate observed variables into psychologically interesting constructs. Response time models, in particular, assume that response time and accuracy are the observed expression of latent variables including 1) ease of processing, 2) response caution, 3) response bias, and 4) non-decision time. Inferences about these psychological factors, hinge upon the validity of the models' parameters. Here, we use a blinded, collaborative approach to assess the validity of such model-based inferences. Seventeen teams of researchers analyzed the same 14 data sets. In each of these two-condition data sets, we manipulated properties of participants' behavior in a two-alternative forced choice task. The contributing teams were blind to the manipulations, and had to infer what aspect of behavior was changed using their method of choice. The contributors chose to employ a variety of models, estimation methods, and inference procedures. Our results show that, although conclusions were similar across different methods, these "modeler's degrees of freedom" did affect their inferences. Interestingly, many of the simpler approaches yielded as robust and accurate inferences as the more complex methods. We recommend that, in general, cognitive models become a typical analysis tool for response time data. In particular, we argue that the simpler models and procedures are sufficient for standard experimental designs. We finish by outlining situations in which more complicated models and methods may be necessary, and discuss potential pitfalls when interpreting the output from response time models.

How environmental regularities affect people's information search in probability judgments from experience.

In everyday life, people encounter smaller rewards with higher probability than larger rewards. Do people expect this reward-probability regularity to hold in experimental settings? To answer this question, we tested whether people's behavior in probability judgment tasks is affected by the correlation between reward size and reward probabilities. In Study 1, we asked people to judge reward probabilities under uncertainty. In line with the ecological reward-probability correlation, people assumed that larger rewards were less likely than smaller rewards. In Study 2, we tested the prediction that people's information search and integration depend on the representativeness of the environment. Participants performed an experience-based probability judgment task in which they sampled outcomes from unknown gambles until they felt confident to estimate the probabilities of the gambles' outcomes. We manipulated the reward-probability relationship of the gambles in 3 experimental groups. Rewards and reward probabilities were negatively correlated, positively correlated, or not correlated at all. A negative correlation mimics the ecological reward-probability relationship often present in real life. We analyzed people's search effort and whether they integrated sample-based uncertainty into their judgments. We found that people sampled fewer outcomes in the ecologically representative condition than in the other 2 conditions. However, people did not integrate sample-based uncertainty in their judgments: In all conditions people treated the observed outcomes as representative of the underlying outcome distribution. People's prior beliefs about regularities in environments provides a potential explanation of why people often rely on small sample sizes when making judgments and decisions from experience. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).