↓ Skip to main content

The neural correlates of the decoy effect in decisions

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The neural correlates of the decoy effect in decisions
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, August 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00271
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jianping Hu, Rongjun Yu

Abstract

Human choices are remarkably susceptible to the context in which options are presented. The introduction of an inferior option (a decoy) into the choice set can make one of the original options (the target) more attractive than and the other original option (the competitor). This so called "decoy effect" represents a striking violation of the "context-invariant" axiom, yet its underlying neural mechanisms are not well understood. Here, we used a novel gambling task in conjunction with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to elucidate its neural basis. At both the stimulus and decision phases, choice sets with decoys activated the occipital gyrus and deactivated the inferior parietal gyrus. At the decision phase, choosing the targets vs. the competitors elicited stronger anterior insula activation, suggesting that perceptual salience drives heuristic decision making in the decoy effect. Moreover, across participants, activity in anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) predicted a reduced susceptibility to the decoy effect, indicating that resisting the tendency to make heuristic decisions is taxing. Our findings highlight the power of the decoy effect in laboratory settings and document the neural mechanisms underlying the decoy effect.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
China 1 1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 1%
Unknown 82 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 20%
Student > Master 16 18%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 20 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 34%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 8%
Neuroscience 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 26 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 August 2014.
All research outputs
#15,303,056
of 22,758,963 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#2,212
of 3,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,149
of 230,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#48
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,963 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,160 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 230,237 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.