Applying the decision moving window to risky choice: Comparison of eye-tracking and mouse-tracing methods
Journal Title: Judgment and Decision Making - Year 2011, Vol 6, Issue 8
Abstract
Currently, a disparity exists between the process-level models decision researchers use to describe and predict decision behavior and the methods implemented and metrics collected to test these models. The current work seeks to remedy this disparity by combining the advantages of work in decision research (mouse-tracing paradigms with contingent information display) and cognitive psychology (eye-tracking paradigms from reading and scene perception). In particular, we introduce a new decision moving-window paradigm that presents stimulus information contingent on eye fixations. We provide data from the first application of this method to risky decision making, and show how it compares to basic eye-tracking and mouse-tracing methods. We also enumerate the practical, theoretical, and analytic advantages this method offers above and beyond both mouse-tracing with occlusion and basic eye tracking of information without occlusion. We include the use of new metrics that offer more precision than those typically calculated on mouse-tracing data as well as those not possible or feasible within the mouse-tracing paradigm.
Authors and Affiliations
Ana M. Franco-Watkins and Joseph G. Johnson
Keywords
Related Articles
- EP ID EP677858
- DOI -
- Views 123
- Downloads 0
What have I just done? Anchoring, self-knowledge, and judgments of recent behavior
Can numerical anchors influence people’s judgments of their own recent behavior? We investigate this question in a series of six studies. In Study 1, subjects’ judgments of how many anagrams they were given assimilated t...
Dual processes and moral conflict: Evidence for deontological reasoners’ intuitive utilitarian sensitivity
The prominent dual process model of moral cognition suggests that reasoners intuitively detect that harming others is wrong (deontological System-1 morality) but have to engage in demanding deliberation to realize that h...
How generalizable is good judgment? A multi-task, multi-benchmark study
Good judgment is often gauged against two gold standards – coherence and correspondence. Judgments are coherent if they demonstrate consistency with the axioms of probability theory or propositional logic. Judgments are...
Are markets more accurate than polls? The surprising informational value of “just asking”
Psychologists typically measure beliefs and preferences using self-reports, whereas economists are much more likely to infer them from behavior. Prediction markets appear to be a victory for the economic approach, having...
How the number of options and perceived variety influence choice satisfaction: An experiment with prescription drug plans
This study measures the perceived costs, perceived benefits, choice outcome satisfaction, and choice process satisfaction from consumers making hypothetical choices amongst prescription drug plans. I juxtapose the number...