Using Eye-Tracking Techniques to Understand the Role of Attention on Choice and Reversals

Raúl López-Pérez, E. Spiegelman
{"title":"Using Eye-Tracking Techniques to Understand the Role of Attention on Choice and Reversals","authors":"Raúl López-Pérez, E. Spiegelman","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3861898","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A preference reversal (PR) refers to behavior that violates revealed preference or is simply incoherent – i.e., not explainable by a rational ordering. In a classical PR experiment, for instance, participants often exhibit greater risk aversion in a Choice-based revelation procedure than in an Evaluation-based one, i.e., choose the safer of two gambles but express a higher monetary valuation for the riskier. We conjecture that PRs are partly due to the interaction between attention and task mode, and explore three compatible explanations using eye-tracking techniques. Explanation 1 says that difficult tasks require more time to be performed without ‘mistakes’. Those who pay scarcely more attention to Evaluation than Choice, therefore, are more likely to act incoherently. Our data corroborate such a prediction. Explanation 2 assumes that the subjective value of (i) a bet or (ii) any of its attributes (prize and winning probability) depends on the attention paid to it. PRs occur when people allocate attention to different elements across tasks. In line with recent models of drift-diffusion, we find evidence consistent with point (i): a higher focus on the safer bet during Choice predicts PRs. In contrast, little evidence supports the idea (ii) that the share of fixations on probabilities versus prizes influences behavior or PRs. Explanation 3, finally, states that the nature of the tasks may affect the comparisons people make between the options, which are relevant for behavior. For instance, the cognitive difficulty of pricing a bet in Evaluation could distract attention from the relative risk across bets, thus reducing risk aversion. In our design, both bets are visible on the computer screen in both tasks, and subjects make substantially more transitions between bets in Choice. Yet this is observed among all participants, not only the reversers.","PeriodicalId":261981,"journal":{"name":"DecisionSciRN: Choice Theory (Sub-Topic)","volume":"61 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DecisionSciRN: Choice Theory (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3861898","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A preference reversal (PR) refers to behavior that violates revealed preference or is simply incoherent – i.e., not explainable by a rational ordering. In a classical PR experiment, for instance, participants often exhibit greater risk aversion in a Choice-based revelation procedure than in an Evaluation-based one, i.e., choose the safer of two gambles but express a higher monetary valuation for the riskier. We conjecture that PRs are partly due to the interaction between attention and task mode, and explore three compatible explanations using eye-tracking techniques. Explanation 1 says that difficult tasks require more time to be performed without ‘mistakes’. Those who pay scarcely more attention to Evaluation than Choice, therefore, are more likely to act incoherently. Our data corroborate such a prediction. Explanation 2 assumes that the subjective value of (i) a bet or (ii) any of its attributes (prize and winning probability) depends on the attention paid to it. PRs occur when people allocate attention to different elements across tasks. In line with recent models of drift-diffusion, we find evidence consistent with point (i): a higher focus on the safer bet during Choice predicts PRs. In contrast, little evidence supports the idea (ii) that the share of fixations on probabilities versus prizes influences behavior or PRs. Explanation 3, finally, states that the nature of the tasks may affect the comparisons people make between the options, which are relevant for behavior. For instance, the cognitive difficulty of pricing a bet in Evaluation could distract attention from the relative risk across bets, thus reducing risk aversion. In our design, both bets are visible on the computer screen in both tasks, and subjects make substantially more transitions between bets in Choice. Yet this is observed among all participants, not only the reversers.
利用眼动追踪技术了解注意在选择和反转中的作用
偏好反转(PR)指的是违反显性偏好或不连贯的行为,即不能用理性顺序来解释。例如,在一个经典的公关实验中,参与者在基于选择的披露过程中往往比基于评估的披露过程中表现出更大的风险厌恶,即在两场赌博中选择更安全的,但对风险更大的赌博表现出更高的货币估值。我们推测pr部分是由于注意力和任务模式之间的相互作用,并利用眼动追踪技术探索了三种兼容的解释。解释1说,困难的任务需要更多的时间来完成而不出现“错误”。因此,那些对评价的重视程度不超过对选择的重视的人,更有可能表现得语无伦次。我们的数据证实了这样的预测。解释2假设(i)赌注或(ii)其任何属性(奖金和获胜概率)的主观价值取决于对它的关注。pr发生在人们将注意力分配到不同任务的不同元素时。根据最近的漂移-扩散模型,我们发现了与(i)点一致的证据:在选择过程中,对更安全的赌注的更高关注预测pr。相比之下,很少有证据支持以下观点(ii),即关注概率与关注奖励的比例会影响行为或pr。最后,解释3指出,任务的性质可能会影响人们在与行为相关的选项之间进行的比较。例如,在评估中为一个赌注定价的认知困难可能会分散人们对赌注之间相对风险的注意力,从而减少风险厌恶。在我们的设计中,在两个任务中,两个赌注都可以在计算机屏幕上看到,并且受试者在选择中的赌注之间有更多的转换。然而,所有参与者都观察到了这一点,而不仅仅是逆行者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信