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

想象一下，在苹果和巧克力之间做出选择。一瞬间，你就会想到那个可爱的、嘎吱作响的苹果。下一秒，你就会想到顺滑、放纵的巧克力。你的注意力会在苹果和巧克力之间来回移动，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个瞬间到底发生了什么。我们将结合实验室实验(在支持案例中详细描述)和翻译现场实验，让真正的消费者做出真正的选择(与我们的行业合作伙伴，详细描述在影响的路径中)。使用眼球跟踪技术，我们将记录人们看着他们选择的每一毫秒。这将使我们能够解释注意力和选择之间的联系。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。当有人选择时，他们会花时间仔细考虑，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，他们就更有可能选择它。这导致了漂移扩散模型的发展。尽管很复杂，但这些模型实例化了以下想法：当一个人在看一个特定的选项时，他们偏向于思考为什么应该选择那个选项。例如，如果你在看巧克力，你更有可能想到巧克力，并倾向于选择巧克力。在模特的语言中，我们说你在关注巧克力的同时，也在偏向于选择巧克力。如果巧克力真的比苹果好吃，你很快就会选择它。用模型的语言来说，你有很高的漂移率。如果巧克力和苹果的搭配相当均匀，你将需要很长时间才能决定。用模型的语言来说，你的漂移率很低。现在，当你看着巧克力棒时，我们不知道你在想的是甜味、高卡路里还是漂亮的包装纸。因此，我们让实验室里的人在具有不同空间属性的选项中进行选择。例如，我们让人们在现金奖金和中奖机会分开写的彩票之间进行选择，紧挨着写着。我们对结果感到惊讶。我们发现，更多地关注特定的彩票与选择该彩票有关--就像选择巧克力一样。但这一结果并不适用于不同的属性。你可能会认为，那些更看重高额现金奖励的人更有可能选择彩票，而更关注中奖几率较低的人更不可能选择彩票。但是，在整个系列的实验中，查看备选方案的不良属性与选择该备选方案的关联与查看良好属性的关联同样强烈。我们的结果表明，虽然您正在查看的内容和您正在考虑的内容之间的联系在整个备选方案的级别上是牢固的，但在复合属性的级别上它是断开的。我们需要重新思考我们如何选择的模式。在实验室中，我们将在广泛的任务中重复我们的发现。我们将测试操纵人们查看的属性的效果。我们将测试一个反馈循环，在该循环中，观看会增加漂移率，而漂移率又会增加观看，依此类推。结果将是新的实验证据和新的想法，关于我们如何随着时间的推移建立证据来选择。我们将把这项实验室研究转化为日常生活，让真正的消费者真正做出选择。通过与消费金融产品监管机构金融市场行为监管局、英国信用卡行业以及哪一家银行合作？对于消费者群体，我们将实施实地试验，在真实的选择中展示这些影响，并衡量它们的影响。

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.