↓ Skip to main content

The Dynamics of Decision Making in Risky Choice: An Eye-Tracking Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
189 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
359 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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 Dynamics of Decision Making in Risky Choice: An Eye-Tracking Analysis
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00335
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susann Fiedler, Andreas Glöckner

Abstract

In the last years, research on risky choice has moved beyond analyzing choices only. Models have been suggested that aim to describe the underlying cognitive processes and some studies have tested process predictions of these models. Prominent approaches are evidence accumulation models such as decision field theory (DFT), simple serial heuristic models such as the adaptive toolbox, and connectionist approaches such as the parallel constraint satisfaction (PCS) model. In two studies involving measures of attention and pupil dilation, we investigate hypotheses derived from these models in choices between two gambles with two outcomes each. We show that attention to an outcome of a gamble increases with its probability and its value and that attention shifts toward the subsequently favored gamble after about two thirds of the decision process, indicating a gaze-cascade effect. Information search occurs mostly within-gambles, and the direction of search does not change over the course of decision making. Pupil dilation, which reflects both cognitive effort and arousal, increases during the decision process and increases with mean expected value. Overall, the results support aspects of automatic integration models for risky choice such as DFT and PCS, but in their current specification none of them can account for the full pattern of results.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 359 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 5 1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Slovakia 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 346 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 83 23%
Student > Master 68 19%
Student > Bachelor 44 12%
Researcher 36 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 5%
Other 55 15%
Unknown 56 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 137 38%
Neuroscience 30 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 20 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 16 4%
Computer Science 15 4%
Other 68 19%
Unknown 73 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 02 December 2012.
All research outputs
#12,800,863
of 22,679,690 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,664
of 29,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,602
of 244,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#211
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,679,690 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,387 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
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 244,102 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 481 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.