Intrachoice Dynamics Shape Social Decisions

References

• Amasino DR, Sullivan NJ, Kranton RE, Huettel SA (2019) Amount and time exert independent influences on intertemporal choice. Nature Human Behav. 3(4):383–392.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Artavia-Mora L, Bedi AS, Rieger M (2017) Intuitive help and punishment in the field. Eur. Econom. Rev. 92:133–145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Azen R, Budescu DV (2003) The dominance analysis approach for comparing predictors in multiple regression. Psych. Methods 8(2):129–148.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldassi C, Cerreia-Vioglio S, Maccheroni F, Marinacci M, Pirazzini et al. (2020) A behavioral characterization of the drift diffusion model and its multialternative extension for choice under time pressure. Management Sci. 66(11):5075–5093.Link, Google Scholar
• Basten U, Biele G, Heekeren HR, Fiebach C (2010) How the brain integrates costs and benefits during decision making. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107(50):21767–21772.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bolton GE, Ockenfels A (2000) ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. Amer. Econom. Rev. 90(1):166–193.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Machine Learn. 45(1):5–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Breugem T, Dollevoet T, Huisman D (2022) Is equality always desirable? Analyzing the trade-off between fairness and attractiveness in crew rostering. Management Sci. 68(4):2619–2641.Link, Google Scholar
• Budescu DV (1993) Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of relative importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psych. Bull. 114(3):542–551.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cappelen AW, Hole AD, Sørensen EØ, Tungodden B (2007) The pluralism of fairness ideals: An experimental approach. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(3):818–827.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cappelen AW, Nielsen UH, Tungodden B, Tyran J-R, Wengström E (2016) Fairness is intuitive. Experiment. Econom. 19(4):727–740.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Rabin M (2002) Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quart. J. Econom. 117(3):817–869.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen F, Fischbacher U (2016) Response time and click position: Cheap indicators of preferences. J. Econom. Sci. Assoc. 2(2):109–126.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen F, Krajbich I (2018) Biased sequential sampling underlies the effects of time pressure and delay in social decision making. Nature Comm. 9(1):3557.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cheng J, González-Vallejo C (2018) Unpacking decision difficulty: Testing action dynamics in intertemporal, gamble, and consumer choices. Acta Psychologica (Amsterdam) 190:199–216.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clithero JA (2018a) Improving out-of-sample predictions using response times and a model of the decision process. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 148:344–375.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clithero JA (2018b) Response times in economics: Looking through the lens of sequential sampling models. J. Econom. Psych. 69:61–86.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cramer JS (1999) Predictive performance of the binary logit model in unbalanced samples. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. D 48(1):85–94.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dai X, Fishbach A (2013) When waiting to choose increases patience. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 121(2):256–266.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Desai N, Krajbich I (2022) Decomposing preferences into predispositions and evaluations. J. Experiment. Psych. General 151:1883–1903.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edelson MG, Polania R, Ruff CC, Fehr E, Hare TA (2018) Computational and neurobiological foundations of leadership decisions. Sci. 361(6401):467.Google Scholar
• Falandays JB, Spevack S, Pärnamets P, Spivey M (2021) Decision-making in the human-machine interface. Frontiers Psych. 12:99.Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Schmidt KM (1999) A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quart. J. Econom. 114(3):817–868.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiedler S, Glöckner A, Nicklisch A, Dickert S (2013) Social value orientation and information search in social dilemmas: An eye-tracking analysis. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 120(2):272–284.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fisher G (2021) Intertemporal choices are causally influenced by fluctuations in visual attention. Management Sci. 67(8):4961–4981.Link, Google Scholar
• Fisher G (2023) Measuring the factors influencing purchasing decisions: Evidence from cursor tracking and cognitive modeling. Management Sci., ePub ahead of print January 5, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4598.Link, Google Scholar
• Freeman JB, Ambady N (2010) Mousetracker: Software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method. Behav. Res. Methods 42(1):226–241.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Freeman JB, Ambady N, Rule NO, Johnson KL (2008) Will a category cue attract you? Motor output reveals dynamic competition across person construal. J. Experiment. Psych. General 137(4):673–690.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frydman C, Nave G (2017) Extrapolative beliefs in perceptual and economic decisions: Evidence of a common mechanism. Management Sci. 63(7):2340–2352.Link, Google Scholar
• Ghaffari M, Fiedler S (2018) The power of attention: Using eye gaze to predict other-regarding and moral choices. Psych. Sci. 29(11):1878–1889.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gluth S, Rieskamp J, Büchel C (2012) Deciding when to decide: Time-variant sequential sampling models explain the emergence of value-based decisions in the human brain. J. Neuroscience 32(31):10686–10698.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guo L, Trueblood JS, Diederich A (2017) Thinking fast increases framing effects in risky decision making. Psych. Sci. 28(4):530–543.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hawkins GE, Forstmann BU, Wagenmakers E-J, Ratcliff R, Brown SD (2015) Revisiting the evidence for collapsing boundaries and urgency signals in perceptual decision-making. J. Neuroscience 35(6):2476–2484.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hutcherson CA, Bushong B, Rangel A (2015) A neurocomputational model of altruistic choice and its implications. Neuron 87(2):451–462.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Imas A, Kuhn M, Mironova V (2022) Waiting to choose: The role of deliberation in intertemporal choice. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconomics 14(3):414–440.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson EJ, Häubl G, Keinan A (2007) Aspects of endowment: A query theory of value construction. J. Experiment. Psych. Learn. Memory Cognition 33(3):461–474.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karagözoğlu E, Kocher MG (2019) Bargaining under time pressure from deadlines. Experiment. Econom. 22(2):419–440.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Konovalov A, Krajbich I (2020) Mouse tracking reveals structure knowledge in the absence of model-based choice. Nature Comm. 11(1):1893.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koop GJ (2013) An assessment of the temporal dynamics of moral decisions. Judgment Decision Making 8(5):527–539.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koop GJ, Johnson JG (2011) Response dynamics: A new window on the decision process. Judgment Decision Making 6(8):750–758.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krajbich I (2021) Multi-parameter utility and drift-rate functions conflate attribute weights and choice consistency. Preprint, submitted January 17, https://psyarxiv.com/vnxsu/.Google Scholar
• Krajbich I, Armel C, Rangel A (2010) Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice. Nature Neuroscience 13(10):1292–1298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krajbich I, Bartling B, Hare T, Fehr E (2015a) Rethinking fast and slow based on a critique of reaction-time reverse inference. Nature Comm. 6:7455.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krajbich I, Hare T, Bartling B, Morishima Y, Fehr E (2015b) A common mechanism underlying food choice and social decisions. PLOS Comput. Biol. 11(10):e1004371.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kvam PD, Busemeyer JR (2020) A distributional and dynamic theory of pricing and preference. Psych. Rev. 127(6):1053–1078.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lepora NF, Pezzulo G (2015) Embodied choice: How action influences perceptual decision making. PLOS Comput. Biol. 11(4):e1004110.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liaw A, Wiener M (2002) Classification and regression by randomforest. R News 2(3):18–22.Google Scholar
• Liebrand WB, McClintock CG (1988) The ring measure of social values: A computerized procedure for assessing individual differences in information processing and social value orientation. Eur. J. Personality 2(3):217–230.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lim S-L, Penrod MT, Ha O-R, Bruce JM, Bruce et al. (2018) Calorie labeling promotes dietary self-control by shifting the temporal dynamics of health-and taste-attribute integration in overweight individuals. Psych. Sci. 29(3):447–462.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lombardi G, Hare T (2021) Method for Fitting HtSSM and HaDDM with jags., Accessed February 1, 2023, https://github.com/galombardi/method_HtSSM_aDDM.Google Scholar
• Maier SU, Beharelle AR, Polanía R, Ruff CC, Hare TA (2020) Dissociable mechanisms govern when and how strongly reward attributes affect decisions. Nature Human Behav. 4:949–963.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Milosavljevic M, Malmaud J, Huth A, Koch C, Rangel A (2010) The drift diffusion model can account for the accuracy and reaction time of value-based choices under high and low time pressure. Judgment Decision Making 5(6):437–449.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mischkowski D, Glöckner A, Lewisch P (2018) From spontaneous cooperation to spontaneous punishment—Distinguishing the underlying motives driving spontaneous behavior in first and second order public good games. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 149:59–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moon K-K (2017) Fairness at the organizational level: Examining the effect of organizational justice climate on collective turnover rates and organizational performance. Public Personnel Management 46(2):118–143.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Olschewski S, Rieskamp J (2021) Distinguishing three effects of time pressure on risk taking: Choice consistency, risk preference, and strategy selection. J. Behav. Decision Making 34(4):541–554.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Palestro JJ, Weichart E, Sederberg PB, Turner BM (2018) Some task demands induce collapsing bounds: Evidence from a behavioral analysis. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 25(4):1225–1248.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J (2007) Human resources from an organizational behavior perspective: Some paradoxes explained. J. Econom. Perspect. 21(4):115–134.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Piovesan M, Wengström E (2009) Fast or fair? A study of response times. Econom. Lett. 105(2):193–196.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pisauro MA, Fouragnan E, Retzler C, Philiastides MG (2017) Neural correlates of evidence accumulation during value-based decisions revealed via simultaneous EEG-fMRI. Nature Comm. 8(1):15808.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pleskac TJ, Busemeyer JR (2010) Two-stage dynamic signal detection: A theory of choice, decision time, and confidence. Psych. Rev. 117(3):864–901.Crossref, Google Scholar
• R (2022) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna).Google Scholar
• Rand DG, Greene JD, Nowak MA (2012) Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature 489(7416):427–430.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roe RM, Busemeyer JR, Townsend JT (2001) Multialternative decision field theory: A dynamic connections model of decision making. Psych. Rev. 108(2):370.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roth AE, Murnighan JK, Schoumaker F (1988) The deadline effect in bargaining: Some experimental evidence. Amer. Econom. Rev. 78(4):806–823.Google Scholar
• Saqib NU, Chan EY (2015) Time pressure reverses risk preferences. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 130:58–68.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sheng F, Ramakrishnan A, Seok D, Zhao WJ, Thelaus S, Cen P, Platt ML (2020) Decomposing loss aversion from gaze allocation and pupil dilation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 117(21):11356–11363.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith SM, Krajbich I (2018) Attention and choice across domains. J. Experiment. Psych. General 147(12):1810–1826.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spiliopoulos L, Ortmann A (2018) The BCD of response time analysis in experimental economics. Experiment. Econom. 21(2):383–433.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spivey MJ, Grosjean M, Knoblich G (2005) Continuous attraction toward phonological competitors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102(29):10393–10398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stillman PE, Krajbich I, Ferguson MJ (2020) Using dynamic monitoring of choices to predict and understand risk preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 117(50):31738–31747.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stillman PE, Shen X, Ferguson MJ (2018) How mouse-tracking can advance social cognitive theory. Trends Cognitive Sci. 22(6):531–543.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sullivan N, Hutcherson C, Harris A, Rangel A (2015) Dietary self-control is related to the speed with which attributes of healthfulness and tastiness are processed. Psych. Sci. 26(2):122–134.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sullivan NJ, Huettel SA (2021) Healthful choices depend on the latency and rate of information accumulation. Nature Human Behav. 5(12):1698–1706.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Teoh YY, Yao Z, Cunningham WA, Hutcherson CA (2020) Attentional priorities drive effects of time pressure on altruistic choice. Nature Comm. 11(1):1–13.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tinghög G, Andersson D, Bonn C, Böttiger H, Josephson C, Lundgren G, Västfjäll D, Kirchler M, Johannesson M (2013) Intuition and cooperation reconsidered. Nature 498(7452):E1–E2.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Townsend JT (1990) Serial vs. parallel processing: Sometimes they look like Tweedledum and Tweedledee but they can (and should) be distinguished. Psych. Sci. 1(1):46–54.Google Scholar
• Townsend JT, Nozawa G (1995) Spatio-temporal properties of elementary perception: An investigation of parallel, serial, and coactive theories. J. Math. Psychol. 39(4):321–359.Google Scholar
• Trueblood JS, Brown SD, Heathcote A (2014) The multiattribute linear ballistic accumulator model of context effects in multialternative choice. Psych. Rev. 121(2):179–205.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Turner BM, Forstmann BU, Wagenmakers E-J, Brown SD, Sederberg PB, Steyvers M (2013) A Bayesian framework for simultaneously modeling neural and behavioral data. Neuroimage 72:193–206.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Urai AE, De Gee JW, Tsetsos K, Donner TH (2019) Choice history biases subsequent evidence accumulation. eLife 8:e46331.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Verkoeijen PP, Bouwmeester S (2014) Does intuition cause cooperation? PLoS One 9(5):e96654.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Webb R (2019) The (neural) dynamics of stochastic choice. Management Sci. 65(1):230–255.Link, Google Scholar
• Weber EU, Johnson EJ, Milch KF, Chang H, Brodscholl JC, Goldstein DG (2007) Asymmetric discounting in intertemporal choice: A query-theory account. Psych. Sci. 18(6):516–523.Crossref, Google Scholar
• White CN, Poldrack RA (2014) Decomposing bias in different types of simple decisions. J. Experiment. Psych. Learn. Memory Cognition 40(2):385–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yang X, Krajbich I (2023) A dynamic computational model of gaze and choice in multi-attribute decisions. Psych. Rev. 130(1):52–70.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhao WJ, Walasek L, Bhatia S (2020) Psychological mechanisms of loss aversion: A drift-diffusion decomposition. Cognitive Psych. 123:101331.Crossref, Google Scholar