Mingqian Guo, Iris Ikink, Karin Roelofs, Bernd Figner
{"title":"跨期和风险选择中的模糊偏好:一项使用漂移-扩散模型的大规模研究。","authors":"Mingqian Guo, Iris Ikink, Karin Roelofs, Bernd Figner","doi":"10.3758/s13423-025-02709-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Intertemporal choices constitute a significant topic of interest in both psychological and behavioral-economics research. While many studies focus on decisions with precisely known reward delivery times, real-world situations typically involve only an imprecise knowledge of these timings (i.e., the delivery times are ambiguous). The current study uses a large size dataset (sample size N > 669) consisting of both risky and intertemporal ambiguous and nonambiguous choices and aims (i) to clarify the relationship between probability-ambiguity and time-ambiguity effects on choice, and (ii) to evaluate different computational models (attribute-wise and integrated-value models) across risky and intertemporal choice domains using a drift-diffusion model (DDM) framework. Analysis of the choice data revealed a significant association: Individuals who were more averse to time ambiguity also exhibited a stronger aversion to probability ambiguity, as indicated by a correlation of r = .28. The DDM analyses revealed that (i) DDMs incorporating ambiguity preferences outperformed models without ambiguity preferences in both the time and probability domain for most participants. Interestingly, (ii) while time-ambiguity aversion was best explained by an attribute-wise model, probability-ambiguity aversion was best explained by an integrated-value model. Finally, we found that (iii) if an individual's intertemporal decisions were best explained by a DDM incorporating ambiguity, then their risky decisions were also most likely best explained by a DDM incorporating ambiguity.Taken together, our results are evidence that ambiguity preferences across the time and probability domains are not independent but show some consistency despite the differing-attribute-wise versus integrated-value-decision strategies in each domain.</p>","PeriodicalId":20763,"journal":{"name":"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ambiguity preferences in intertemporal and risky choice: A large-scale study using drift-diffusion modelling.\",\"authors\":\"Mingqian Guo, Iris Ikink, Karin Roelofs, Bernd Figner\",\"doi\":\"10.3758/s13423-025-02709-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Intertemporal choices constitute a significant topic of interest in both psychological and behavioral-economics research. While many studies focus on decisions with precisely known reward delivery times, real-world situations typically involve only an imprecise knowledge of these timings (i.e., the delivery times are ambiguous). The current study uses a large size dataset (sample size N > 669) consisting of both risky and intertemporal ambiguous and nonambiguous choices and aims (i) to clarify the relationship between probability-ambiguity and time-ambiguity effects on choice, and (ii) to evaluate different computational models (attribute-wise and integrated-value models) across risky and intertemporal choice domains using a drift-diffusion model (DDM) framework. Analysis of the choice data revealed a significant association: Individuals who were more averse to time ambiguity also exhibited a stronger aversion to probability ambiguity, as indicated by a correlation of r = .28. The DDM analyses revealed that (i) DDMs incorporating ambiguity preferences outperformed models without ambiguity preferences in both the time and probability domain for most participants. Interestingly, (ii) while time-ambiguity aversion was best explained by an attribute-wise model, probability-ambiguity aversion was best explained by an integrated-value model. Finally, we found that (iii) if an individual's intertemporal decisions were best explained by a DDM incorporating ambiguity, then their risky decisions were also most likely best explained by a DDM incorporating ambiguity.Taken together, our results are evidence that ambiguity preferences across the time and probability domains are not independent but show some consistency despite the differing-attribute-wise versus integrated-value-decision strategies in each domain.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20763,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-025-02709-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-025-02709-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Ambiguity preferences in intertemporal and risky choice: A large-scale study using drift-diffusion modelling.
Intertemporal choices constitute a significant topic of interest in both psychological and behavioral-economics research. While many studies focus on decisions with precisely known reward delivery times, real-world situations typically involve only an imprecise knowledge of these timings (i.e., the delivery times are ambiguous). The current study uses a large size dataset (sample size N > 669) consisting of both risky and intertemporal ambiguous and nonambiguous choices and aims (i) to clarify the relationship between probability-ambiguity and time-ambiguity effects on choice, and (ii) to evaluate different computational models (attribute-wise and integrated-value models) across risky and intertemporal choice domains using a drift-diffusion model (DDM) framework. Analysis of the choice data revealed a significant association: Individuals who were more averse to time ambiguity also exhibited a stronger aversion to probability ambiguity, as indicated by a correlation of r = .28. The DDM analyses revealed that (i) DDMs incorporating ambiguity preferences outperformed models without ambiguity preferences in both the time and probability domain for most participants. Interestingly, (ii) while time-ambiguity aversion was best explained by an attribute-wise model, probability-ambiguity aversion was best explained by an integrated-value model. Finally, we found that (iii) if an individual's intertemporal decisions were best explained by a DDM incorporating ambiguity, then their risky decisions were also most likely best explained by a DDM incorporating ambiguity.Taken together, our results are evidence that ambiguity preferences across the time and probability domains are not independent but show some consistency despite the differing-attribute-wise versus integrated-value-decision strategies in each domain.
期刊介绍:
The journal provides coverage spanning a broad spectrum of topics in all areas of experimental psychology. The journal is primarily dedicated to the publication of theory and review articles and brief reports of outstanding experimental work. Areas of coverage include cognitive psychology broadly construed, including but not limited to action, perception, & attention, language, learning & memory, reasoning & decision making, and social cognition. We welcome submissions that approach these issues from a variety of perspectives such as behavioral measurements, comparative psychology, development, evolutionary psychology, genetics, neuroscience, and quantitative/computational modeling. We particularly encourage integrative research that crosses traditional content and methodological boundaries.