Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T01:58:23.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Eye-tracking and economic theories of choice under risk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Glenn W. Harrison  and
J. Todd Swarthout
Glenn W. Harrison*
Affiliation:
Department of Risk Management and Insurance and Center for the Economic Analysis of Risk, Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, Atlanta, USA School of Economics, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
J. Todd Swarthout*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics and Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta, USA
*
[email protected]
e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examine the ability of eye movement data to help understand the determinants of decision-making over risky prospects. We start with structural models of choice under risk, and use that structure to inform what we identify from the use of process data in addition to choice data. We find that information on eye movements does significantly affect the extent and nature of probability weighting behavior. Our structural model allows us to show the pathway of the effect, rather than simply identifying a reduced form effect. This insight should be of importance for the normative design of choice mechanisms for risky products. We also show that decision-response duration is no substitute for the richer information provided by eye-tracking.

Keywords

RiskIndividual decision makingChoiceVisual attentionEye trackingExperiment

JEL classification

C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior D81: Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty D83: Search • Learning • Information and Knowledge • Communication • Belief • Unawareness
Type
Original Paper
Information
Journal of the Economic Science Association , Volume 5 , Issue 1: Special Issue: Choice-Process Data in Experimental Economics , August 2019 , pp. 26 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © Economic Science Association 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s40881-019-00063-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Arieli, A., Ben-Ami, Y., Rubinstein, A. (2011). Tracking decision makers under uncertainty. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 3(4), 68–76.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. W., Birch, D. (1970). The dynamics of action, New York: Wiley.Google ScholarPubMed
Busemeyer, J. R., Forsyth, B., Nozawa, G. (1988). Comparisons of elimination by aspects and suppression of aspects choice models based on choice response time. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 32(3), 341–349. 10.1016/0022-2496(88)90016-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busemeyer, J. R., Townsend, J. T. (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review, 100(3), 432–459. 10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, S., Glöckner, A. (2012). The dynamics of decision making in risky choice: An eye-tracking analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–18. 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00335CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glöckner, A., Fiedler, S., Hochman, G., Ayal, S., Hilbig, B. E. (2012). Processing differences between descriptions and experience: A comparative analysis using eye-tracking and physiological measures”. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–15. 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00173CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glöckner, A., Herbold, A. (2011). An eye-tracking study on information processing in risky decisions: Evidence for compensatory strategies based on automatic processes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24, 71–98. 10.1002/bdm.684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossberg, S., Gutowski, W. E. (1987). Neural dynamics of decision making under risk: Affective balance and cognitive–emotional interactions. Psychological Review, 94(3), 300–318. 10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.300CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrison, G. W. (2008). Neuroeconomics: A critical reconsideration. Economics and Philosophy, 24(3), 303–344. 10.1017/S0266267108002009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G. W., Ng, J. M. (2016). Evaluating the expected welfare gain of insurance. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 83(1), 91–120. 10.1111/jori.12142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G. W., Ross, D. (2018). Varieties of paternalism and the heterogeneity of utility structures. Journal of Economic Methodology, 25(1), 42–67. 10.1080/1350178X.2017.1380896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G. W., Rutström, E. E., Cox, J. C., Harrison, G. W. (2008). Risk aversion in the laboratory Risk aversion in experiments, Bingley: Emerald, Research in Experimental Economics 10.1016/S0193-2306(08)00003-3Google Scholar
Harrison, G. W., Rutström, E. E. (2009). Expected utility and prospect theory: One wedding and a decent funeral. Experimental Economics, 12(2), 133–158. 10.1007/s10683-008-9203-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janowski, V. (2012). Computational biases in decision-making. Ph.D Thesis Dissertation, California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329–354. 10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D., Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291. 10.2307/1914185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohse, G. L., Johnson, E. J. (1996). A comparison of two process tracing methods for choice tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68(1), 28–43. 10.1006/obhd.1996.0087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marley, A. A. J. (1981). Multivariate stochastic processes compatible with ‘Aspect’ models of similarity and choice. Psychometrika, 46(4), 421–428. 10.1007/BF02293799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marley, A. A. J. (1989). A random utility family that includes many of the ‘classical’ models and has closed form choice probabilities and choice reaction times. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 42(1), 13–36. 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1989.tb01112.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orquin, J. L., Loose, S. M. (2013). Attention and choice: A review on eye movements in decision making. Acta Psychologica, 144, 190–206. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.06.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pachur, T., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Murphy, R. O., Hertwig, R. (2018). Prospect theory reflects selective allocation of attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(2), 147–169. 10.1037/xge0000406CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Posner, M. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–25. 10.1080/00335558008248231CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prelec, D. (1998). The probability weighting function. Econometrica, 66, 497–527. 10.2307/2998573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quiggin, J. (1982). A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3(4), 323–343. 10.1016/0167-2681(82)90008-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422. 10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457–1506. 10.1080/17470210902816461CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosen, L. D., Rosenkoetter, P. (1976). An eye fixation analysis of choice and judgment with multiattribute stimuli. Memory and Cognition, 4(6), 747–752. 10.3758/BF03213243CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russo, J. E., Dosher, B. A. (1983). Strategies for multiattribute binary choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 9, 676–696.Google ScholarPubMed
Stewart, N., Hermens, F., Matthews, W. J. (2016). Eye movements in risky choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29, 116–136. 10.1002/bdm.1854CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Su, Y., Rao, L.-L., Sun, H.-Y., Du, X.-L., Li, X., Li, S. (2013). Is making a risky choice based on a weighting and adding process? An eye-tracking investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 39(6), 1765–1780.Google ScholarPubMed
Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79(4), 281–299. 10.1037/h0032955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Harrison and Swarthout supplementary material

Appendix A: Instructions and Parameters (Online Working Paper)
Download Harrison and Swarthout supplementary material(File)
File 693.7 KB