Accumulating to choose, but accumulating what? Drift diffusion modelling of economic preference

积累是为了选择，但积累什么呢？

• 批准号: ES/N018192/1
• 负责人: Neil Stewart
• 金额: $ 65.93万
• 依托单位: University of Warwick
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Research Grant
• 财政年份: 2017
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2017 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=ES%2FN018192%2F1
• 关键词: Accumulating; choose; but; accumulating; what

Imagine choosing between an apple and some chocolate. In one instant you will be thinking about the lovely, crunchy apple. The next you are thinking about the smooth, indulgent chocolate. Your attention will dart back and forth between the apple and the chocolate until you make your mind up. This research is about exactly what is happening, at each instant, as you deliberate and choose. We will combine laboratory experiments (detailed in the Case for Support) and translational field experiments with real consumers making real choices (with our industry collaborators, detailed in the Pathways to Impact). Using eye-tracking technology, we will record millisecond-by-millisecond where people are looking as they choose. This will allow us to build an explanation of the link between attention and choice.Psychology, Neuroscience, and Economics have developed a first-generation model based on some key findings. When someone is choosing they take time to deliberate and shift their attention back and forth repeatedly. We now know that people are likely to look more at the option they ultimately choose and that if we intervene to make people look more at one option they are more likely to choose it. This has led to the development of drift diffusion models. Although complicated, these models instantiate the following idea: While an individual is looking at a specific option, they are biased towards thinking about why they should choose that option. For example, if you are looking at the chocolate, you are more likely to be thinking about the chocolate and are edging towards choosing the chocolate. In the language of the model, we say you are drifting towards choosing the chocolate while attending to the chocolate. If the chocolate is really much nicer than the apple, you will chose it quickly. In the language of the model, you have a high drift rate. If the chocolate and the apple are pretty evenly matched, you will take ages to decide. In the language of the model, you have a low drift rate.Now, when you look at the chocolate bar, we can't tell whether you are thinking about the sweetness, the high calories, or the pretty wrapper. So we asked people in our lab to choose between options with spatially separate attributes. For example, we had people choose between lotteries where the cash prize and the chance of winning were written separately, next to one another. We were surprised by the result. We found that looking more at a particular lottery was associated with choosing that lottery-just like with the chocolate. But this result did not hold for the separate attributes. You might expect people who looked more at the high cash prize to be more likely to pick the lottery and people who looked more at the low chance of winning to be less likely to pick the lottery. But, across a whole series of experiments, looking at the bad properties of an alternative was just as strongly associated with choosing that alternative as looking at the good properties.Our results show that while the link between what you are looking at and what you are thinking about is solid at the level of whole alternatives, it is broken at the level of the composite attributes. We need to rethink the model of how we choose. In the laboratory, we will replicate our findings across a wide number of tasks. We will test the effect of manipulating which attributes people look at. We will test for a feedback loop where looking increases drift rate, which in turn increases looking, and so on. The outcome will be new experimental evidence and new ideas about how we build up evidence over time to choose.We will translate this laboratory research into the everyday, with real consumers choosing for real. By working with the Financial Conduct Authority, the regulator for consumer financial products, the UK credit card industry, and the Which? consumer group, we will implement field trials, demonstrating these effects in real choices and measuring their impact.

想象一下在苹果和巧克力之间做出选择。在一瞬间，你会想到可爱的，脆脆的苹果。下一秒，你就会想到那柔滑、放纵的巧克力。你的注意力会在苹果和巧克力之间来回穿梭，直到你下定决心。这项研究是关于在你深思熟虑和选择的每一瞬间到底发生了什么。我们将结合联合收割机实验室实验（详见支持案例）和转化现场实验，让真实的消费者做出真实的选择（与我们的行业合作者一起，详见影响途径）。使用眼动追踪技术，我们将以毫秒为单位记录人们选择看的地方。心理学、神经科学和经济学基于一些关键发现开发了第一代模型，这将使我们能够解释注意力和选择之间的联系。当有人在选择时，他们会花时间深思熟虑，反复地来回转移注意力。我们现在知道，人们可能会更多地关注他们最终选择的选项，如果我们进行干预，让人们更多地关注一个选项，他们更有可能选择它，这导致了漂移扩散模型的发展。虽然复杂，但这些模型实例化了以下想法：当一个人正在考虑一个特定的选项时，他们倾向于思考为什么他们应该选择这个选项。例如，如果你看着巧克力，你更有可能想到巧克力，并倾向于选择巧克力。在模型的语言中，我们说你在注意巧克力的同时，正在朝着选择巧克力的方向漂移。如果巧克力真的比苹果好吃，你会很快选择它。在模型的语言中，你有一个很高的漂移率。如果巧克力和苹果是势均力敌的，你将需要很长时间才能决定。在模型的语言中，你有一个低漂移率。现在，当你看着巧克力棒时，我们无法分辨你是在想它的甜味，高热量，还是漂亮的包装。所以我们让实验室的人在空间上不同的属性之间做出选择。例如，我们让人们在彩票中进行选择，彩票的现金奖励和中奖机会是分开写的，一个挨着一个。我们对结果感到惊讶。我们发现，更多地关注某张彩票与选择那张彩票有关，就像选择巧克力一样。但这一结果并不适用于单独的属性。你可能会认为，更多地关注高现金奖的人更有可能选择彩票，而更多地关注低中奖机会的人不太可能选择彩票。但是，在一系列的实验中，观察一个替代品的坏属性与选择该替代品的关系与观察好属性的关系一样密切，我们的结果表明，虽然在整个替代品的水平上，你所看到的和你所思考的之间的联系是牢固的，但在复合属性的水平上，这种联系就被打破了。我们需要重新思考我们如何选择的模式。在实验室中，我们将在大量任务中复制我们的发现。我们将测试操纵人们查看哪些属性的效果。我们将测试一个反馈回路，在这个回路中，观察会增加漂移率，而漂移率又会增加观察，依此类推。结果将是新的实验证据，以及关于我们如何随着时间的推移而建立证据来进行选择的新想法。我们将把这个实验室研究转化为日常生活，让真实的消费者为真实的选择。通过与金融行为监管局（Financial Conduct Authority）合作，消费者金融产品监管机构、英国信用卡行业和Which？我们将进行实地试验，在真实的选择中展示这些效果，并衡量其影响。

项目成果

Behaviour and Biases of Retail Investors: Task or Trait?

• DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3791634
• 发表时间: 2021-04
• 期刊: Household Finance eJournal
• 作者: Constantinos Antoniou;C. Firth;David Leake;Neil Stewart

How Do Consumers Avoid Penalty Fees? Evidence from Credit Cards

消费者如何避免罚款？

• DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2019.3568
• 发表时间: 2021
• 期刊: Management Science
• 影响因子: 5.4
• 作者: Gathergood J

Reexamining How Utility and Weighting Functions Get Their Shapes: A Quasi-Adversarial Collaboration Providing a New Interpretation

• DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2018.3170
• 发表时间: 2019-10-01
• 期刊: MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
• 影响因子: 5.4
• 作者: Alempaki, Despoina;Canic, Emina;Tufano, Fabio
• 通讯作者: Tufano, Fabio

It Depends Who you Ask: Context Effects in the Perception of Stock Returns

这取决于你问的是谁：股票回报感知中的背景效应

• DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3777778
• 发表时间: 2021
• 期刊: SSRN Electronic Journal
• 作者: Antoniou C

Similarity and decision time in preferential choice.

优先选择中的相似性和决策时间。

• DOI: 10.1177/1747021818763054
• 发表时间: 2018
• 期刊: Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)
• 作者: Bhatia S