» Articles » PMID: 28827699

Attraction Effect in Risky Choice Can Be Explained by Subjective Distance Between Choice Alternatives

Overview
Journal Sci Rep
Specialty Science
Date 2017 Aug 23
PMID 28827699
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Individuals make decisions under risk throughout daily life. Standard models of economic decision making typically assume that people evaluate choice options independently. There is, however, substantial evidence showing that this independence assumption is frequently violated in decision making without risk. The present study extends these findings to the domain of decision making under risk. To explain the independence violations, we adapted a sequential sampling model, namely Multialternative Decision Field Theory (MDFT), to decision making under risk and showed how this model can account for the observed preference shifts. MDFT not only better predicts choices compared with the standard Expected Utility Theory, but it also explains individual differences in the size of the observed context effect. Evidence in favor of the chosen option, as predicted by MDFT, was positively correlated with brain activity in the medial orbitofrontal cortex (mOFC) and negatively correlated with brain activity in the anterior insula (aINS). From a neuroscience perspective, the results of the present study show that specific brain regions, such as the mOFC and aINS, not only code the value or risk of a single choice option but also code the evidence in favor of the best option compared with other available choice options.

Citing Articles

What can evidence accumulation modelling tell us about human social cognition?.

Parker S, Ramsey R Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2023; 77(3):639-655.

PMID: 37154622 PMC: 10880422. DOI: 10.1177/17470218231176950.


Identifying identity and attributing value to attributes: reconsidering mechanisms of preference decisions.

Perkins A, Rich E Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2022; 41:98-105.

PMID: 36341022 PMC: 9635260. DOI: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.04.019.


A robust Bayesian test for identifying context effects in multiattribute decision-making.

Katsimpokis D, Fontanesi L, Rieskamp J Psychon Bull Rev. 2022; 30(2):498-515.

PMID: 36167914 PMC: 10104952. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-022-02157-2.


Context-effect bias in capuchin monkeys (Sapajus spp.): exploring decoy influences in a value-based food choice task.

Marini M, Boschetti C, Gastaldi S, Addessi E, Paglieri F Anim Cogn. 2022; 26(2):503-514.

PMID: 36125642 PMC: 9950244. DOI: 10.1007/s10071-022-01670-0.


On the use of discrete-time quantum walks in decision theory.

Chen M, Ferro G, Sornette D PLoS One. 2022; 17(8):e0273551.

PMID: 36040872 PMC: 9426940. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273551.


References
1.
Hotaling J, Busemeyer J, Li J . Theoretical developments in decision field theory: comment on Tsetsos, Usher, and Chater (2010). Psychol Rev. 2010; 117(4):1294-8. DOI: 10.1037/a0020401. View

2.
Mohr P, Biele G, Heekeren H . Neural processing of risk. J Neurosci. 2010; 30(19):6613-9. PMC: 6632558. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0003-10.2010. View

3.
Hu J, Yu R . The neural correlates of the decoy effect in decisions. Front Behav Neurosci. 2014; 8:271. PMC: 4124704. DOI: 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00271. View

4.
Grueschow M, Polania R, Hare T, Ruff C . Automatic versus Choice-Dependent Value Representations in the Human Brain. Neuron. 2015; 85(4):874-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.12.054. View

5.
Smith S, Jenkinson M, Woolrich M, Beckmann C, Behrens T, Johansen-Berg H . Advances in functional and structural MR image analysis and implementation as FSL. Neuroimage. 2004; 23 Suppl 1:S208-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.07.051. View