scholarly journals Prospect Theory Reflects Selective Allocation of Attention

Author(s):  
Thorsten Pachur ◽  
Michael Schulte-Mecklenbeck

There is a disconnect in the literature between analyses of risky choice based on cumulativeprospect theory (CPT) and work on predecisional information processing. One likely reason is that for expectation models (e.g., CPT) it is often assumed that people only behaved as if they conducted the computations leading to the predicted choice, and that the models are thus mute with regard to information processing. We suggest that key psychological constructs in CPT, such as loss aversion and outcome and probability sensitivity, can be interpreted in terms of attention allocation. In two experiments, we tested hypotheses about specific links between CPT parameters and attentional regularities. Experiment 1 used process tracing to monitor participants’ predecisional attention allocation to outcome and probability information. As hypothesized, individual differences in CPT’s loss-aversion, outcome-sensitivity, and probability-sensitivity parameters (estimated from participants’ choices) were systematically associated with individual differences in attention allocation to outcome and probability information. For instance, loss aversion was associated with the relative attention allocated to loss and gain outcomes, and a more strongly curved weighting function was associated with less attention allocated to probabilities. Experiment 2 manipulated participants’ attention to losses or gains, causing systematic differences in CPT’s loss aversion parameter. This result indicates that attention allocation can to some extent cause choice regularities that are captured by CPT. Our findings demonstrate an “as-if” model’s capacity to reflect characteristics of information processing. We suggest that the observed CPT–attention links can be harnessed to inform the development of process models of risky choice.

2004 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrizia Vermigli ◽  
Alessandro Toni

The present research analyzes the relationship between attachment styles at an adult age and field dependence in order to identify possible individual differences in information processing. The “Experience in Close Relationships” test of Brennan et al. was administered to a sample of 380 individuals (160 males, 220 females), while a subsample of 122 subjects was given the Embedded Figure Test to measure field dependence. Confirming the starting hypothesis, the results have shown that individuals with different attachment styles have a different way of perceiving the figure against the background. Ambivalent and avoidant individuals lie at the two extremes of the same dimension while secure individuals occupy the central part. Significant differences also emerged between males and females.


2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yariv Cohen ◽  
Eric J. Johnson ◽  
Jayanth Narayanan ◽  
Elke Weber

SPIEL ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-145
Author(s):  
Larissa Leonhard ◽  
Anne Bartsch ◽  
Frank M. Schneider

This article presents an extended dual-process model of entertainment effects on political information processing and engagement. We suggest that entertainment consumption can either be driven by hedonic, escapist motivations that are associated with a superficial mode of information processing, or by eudaimonic, truth-seeking motivations that prompt more elaborate forms of information processing. This framework offers substantial extensions to existing dual-process models of entertainment by conceptualizing the effects of entertainment on active and reflective forms of information seeking, knowledge acquisition and political participation.


Author(s):  
Alex Bertrams

AbstractPeople differ in how strongly they believe that, in general, one gets what (s)he deserves (i.e., individual differences in the general belief in a just world). In this study (N = 588; n = 60 with a formal autism diagnosis), whether or not autistic people and those with high autistic traits have a relatively low general belief in a just world is examined. The results revealed the expected relationship between autism/higher autistic traits and a lower general belief in a just world. In a subsample (n = 388), personal belief in a just world, external locus of control, and self-deception mediated this relationship. These findings are discussed in terms of autistic strengths (less biased information processing) and problems (lowered well-being).


2021 ◽  
pp. 104346312199408
Author(s):  
Carlo Barone ◽  
Katherin Barg ◽  
Mathieu Ichou

This work examines the validity of the two main assumptions of relative risk-aversion models of educational inequality. We compare the Breen-Goldthorpe (BG) and the Breen-Yaish (BY) models in terms of their assumptions about status maintenance motives and beliefs about the occupational risks associated with educational decisions. Concerning the first assumption, our contribution is threefold. First, we criticise the assumption of the BG model that families aim only at avoiding downward mobility and are insensitive to the prospects of upward mobility. We argue that the loss-aversion assumption proposed by BY is a more realistic formulation of status-maintenance motives. Second, we propose and implement a novel empirical approach to assess the validity of the loss-aversion assumption. Third, we present empirical results based on a sample of families of lower secondary school leavers indicating that families are sensitive to the prospects of both upward and downward mobility, and that the loss-aversion hypothesis of BY is empirically supported. As regards the risky choice assumption, we argue that families may not believe that more ambitious educational options entail occupational risks relative to less ambitious ones. We present empirical evidence indicating that, in France, the academic path is not perceived as a risky option. We conclude that, if the restrictive assumptions of the BG model are removed, relative-risk aversion needs not drive educational inequalities.


1976 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 555-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Wyrick ◽  
Vincent J. Tempone ◽  
Jack Capehart

The relationship between attention and incidental learning during discrimination training was studied in 30 children, aged 10 to 11. A polymetric eye-movement recorder measured direct visual attention. Consistent with previous findings, recall of incidental stimuli was greatest during the initial and terminal stages of intentional learning. Contrary to previous explanations, however, visual attention to incidental stimuli was not related to training. While individual differences in attention to incidental stimuli were predictive of recall, attention to incidental stimuli was not related to level of training. Results suggested that changes in higher order information processing rather than direct visual attention were responsible for the curvilinear learning of incidental stimuli during intentional training.


2003 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 884-889 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Kathryn Bleckley ◽  
Francis T. Durso ◽  
Jerry M. Crutchfield ◽  
Randall W. Engle ◽  
Maya M. Khanna

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 45-72
Author(s):  
Kimberly Kirkpatrick ◽  
Andrew T. Marshall ◽  
Aaron P. Smith

2013 ◽  
Vol 103 (6) ◽  
pp. 2499-2529 ◽  
Author(s):  
Levon Barseghyan ◽  
Francesca Molinari ◽  
Ted O'Donoghue ◽  
Joshua C Teitelbaum

We use data on insurance deductible choices to estimate a structural model of risky choice that incorporates “standard” risk aversion (diminishing marginal utility for wealth) and probability distortions. We find that probability distortions—characterized by substantial overweighting of small probabilities and only mild insensitivity to probability changes—play an important role in explaining the aversion to risk manifested in deductible choices. This finding is robust to allowing for observed and unobserved heterogeneity in preferences. We demonstrate that neither Kőszegi-Rabin loss aversion alone nor Gul disappointment aversion alone can explain our estimated probability distortions, signifying a key role for probability weighting. (JEL D14, D81, G22)


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document