Response dynamics in decision making

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

Recent advances in decision research seek to identify the cognitive and brain processes that cause people to choose one option over another. This is notable because it allows us to understand and predict not just what decisions people make, but why they make them. One significant limitation of this more meaningful work is the lack of empirical methods that are capable of revealing the inner workings of an individual's thinking while they choose among options. The current work remedies this shortcoming by examining a new measure of choice behavior -- the movement of a person's hand, arm, or other effector, while they are trying to pick one option over others in tasks requiring them to make choices. Human movement, often referred to as response dynamics in this context, has become an exciting new metric for a number of cognitive processes thought to be hidden from view inside the "black box" of the mind. The innovation of the current research program is to validate and extend this methodology using computational modeling, neuro-electric brain imagery, and additional physiological measures (e.g., eye-tracking) to further reveal how response dynamics can inform scientists about how people make choices.There are many opportunities for broader impact of this research beyond the immediate scope and research questions. First, the systematic and comprehensive investigation of the limitations, qualifications, and generalizability of the response dynamics paradigm can influence other domains where it has been employed, including: categorization, speech perception, stereotyping, deceptive intentions, learning and memory, and perception of culture, race and gender. Second, the theoretical questions addressed can make significant contributions to specific content areas and real-world issues. Any situation where society might benefit from better understanding of how individual decision-making actually occurs -- such as public policy making, educational reform, medical care choices, etc. -- stands to gain from our theoretical advances. For example, we would have new potential to target interventions to improve suboptimal or deviant decision making, and/or to structure decision situations to account for people's natural tendencies.