A decoy is an irrelevant option that, when added to a binary choice, is not selected but nonetheless alters the subjects’ preferences between the other two options, systematically biasing towards one of them (the target of the decoy). Since their first experimental observation (Huber, Payne, & Puto, 1982), the decoy effect has been considered as an important anomaly of rational decision-making. In particular, decoys have been often studied in choices between outcomes occurring at different points in time, i.e. intertemporal choices (Kowal & Faulkner, 2016) and in general they seem to be more effective in biasing towards larger- and-later (LL) outcomes, rather than towards sooner- and-smaller (SS) rewards. We suggest that this puzzling set of results is due to an underappreciation of two influencing factors: time pressure (Pettibone, 2012) and immediacy (Weber & Chapman, 2005). Three studies are presented to support these claims. In Study 1 (N=92), we demonstrate that asymmetrically dominated decoys influence intertemporal decision-making only in the absence of time pressure, since otherwise the comparative process required for the decoy to have an impact cannot occur, consistently with predictions made by connectionist models of decision (e.g., MDFT, Roe, Busemeyer, & Townsend, 2001). In Study 2 (N=53), we show that, when the SS option is no longer presented as immediate, the impact of decoys becomes symmetrical – that is, decoys can prompt subjects to become either more patient or more impulsive, since the anomalous element of immediacy has been removed from the equation. In Study 3 (in progress) we examine attentional processes during intertemporal binary and ternary choices. By using an eye-tracker methodology, we are looking at the decision makers’ information research strategies and the way in which the attentional allocation correlates with the decoy effect elicitation (Noguchi, & Stewart, 2014). According to MDFT, we suppose that gaze, fixations and transitions to and from the decoy option are both the product of an attribute- or alternative-wise comparison model (Cheng & González-Vallejo, 2016) and good predictors of the individual sensitivity to decoys. We conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for our understanding of the multifaceted role of time and attention in decision making.

Decoy effects in intertemporal choice as a litmus test for connectionist models of decision-making / Marini, Marco; Ansani, Alessandro; Paglieri, Fabio. - (2019). (Intervento presentato al convegno From brain to behavior: neuroscience and the social sciences - AISC midterm conference 2019 tenutosi a IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca).

Decoy effects in intertemporal choice as a litmus test for connectionist models of decision-making

Marco Marini;Alessandro Ansani;Fabio Paglieri
2019

Abstract

A decoy is an irrelevant option that, when added to a binary choice, is not selected but nonetheless alters the subjects’ preferences between the other two options, systematically biasing towards one of them (the target of the decoy). Since their first experimental observation (Huber, Payne, & Puto, 1982), the decoy effect has been considered as an important anomaly of rational decision-making. In particular, decoys have been often studied in choices between outcomes occurring at different points in time, i.e. intertemporal choices (Kowal & Faulkner, 2016) and in general they seem to be more effective in biasing towards larger- and-later (LL) outcomes, rather than towards sooner- and-smaller (SS) rewards. We suggest that this puzzling set of results is due to an underappreciation of two influencing factors: time pressure (Pettibone, 2012) and immediacy (Weber & Chapman, 2005). Three studies are presented to support these claims. In Study 1 (N=92), we demonstrate that asymmetrically dominated decoys influence intertemporal decision-making only in the absence of time pressure, since otherwise the comparative process required for the decoy to have an impact cannot occur, consistently with predictions made by connectionist models of decision (e.g., MDFT, Roe, Busemeyer, & Townsend, 2001). In Study 2 (N=53), we show that, when the SS option is no longer presented as immediate, the impact of decoys becomes symmetrical – that is, decoys can prompt subjects to become either more patient or more impulsive, since the anomalous element of immediacy has been removed from the equation. In Study 3 (in progress) we examine attentional processes during intertemporal binary and ternary choices. By using an eye-tracker methodology, we are looking at the decision makers’ information research strategies and the way in which the attentional allocation correlates with the decoy effect elicitation (Noguchi, & Stewart, 2014). According to MDFT, we suppose that gaze, fixations and transitions to and from the decoy option are both the product of an attribute- or alternative-wise comparison model (Cheng & González-Vallejo, 2016) and good predictors of the individual sensitivity to decoys. We conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for our understanding of the multifaceted role of time and attention in decision making.
2019
From brain to behavior: neuroscience and the social sciences - AISC midterm conference 2019
04 Pubblicazione in atti di convegno::04d Abstract in atti di convegno
Decoy effects in intertemporal choice as a litmus test for connectionist models of decision-making / Marini, Marco; Ansani, Alessandro; Paglieri, Fabio. - (2019). (Intervento presentato al convegno From brain to behavior: neuroscience and the social sciences - AISC midterm conference 2019 tenutosi a IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca).
File allegati a questo prodotto
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/1346677
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact