The role of visual attention in opportunity cost neglect and consideration

被引:0
作者
Smith, Stephanie M. [1 ,3 ]
Spiller, Stephen A. [1 ]
Krajbich, Ian [2 ,4 ]
机构
[1] UCLA, Anderson Sch Management, 110 Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA
[2] Ohio State Univ, Dept Psychol & Econ, 1927 Neil Ave, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
[3] Univ Chicago, Booth Sch Business, 5807 South Woodlawn Ave, Chicago, IL 60637 USA
[4] UCLA, Dept Psychol, 110 Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA
关键词
Decision making; Visual attention; Opportunity cost; Drift-diffusion model; DRIFT-DIFFUSION MODEL; DECISION-MAKING; TIME PRESSURE; CHOICE; DYNAMICS; BRAND; ACCUMULATION; PROBABILITY; COMPUTATION; FIXATIONS;
D O I
10.1016/j.cognition.2025.106145
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Choices necessitate opportunity costs: choosing one option means foregoing another. Despite their critical role in decision making, people often neglect opportunity costs and are less likely to make purchases when reminded of them. Here, we seek to understand whether and how opportunity-cost neglect can be explained by attention, a relationship that has been proposed but not explicitly tested. Participants made eye-tracked, incentivized purchase decisions in two conditions: one with implicit opportunity costs (e.g., "Buy" vs. "Do Not Buy") and one with explicit opportunity costs (e.g., "Buy" vs. "Keep Money"). Across two studies (approximately 30,000 choices), we find lower purchase rates when opportunity costs are explicit. More importantly, we show that the relationship between attention and opportunity cost considerations is two-fold. First, the amount of attention to the outside option is greater when opportunity costs are explicit, which partly accounts for the effect of opportunity cost salience on choice. Second, for some framings, the predictive power of attention to opportunity costs is greater when opportunity costs are explicit. Using the attentional drift-diffusion model, we model the effect of opportunity cost salience on choice via attention. These findings help explain why people are more likely to purchase when explicit opportunity cost reminders are absent.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 94 条
[1]   Amount and time exert independent influences on intertemporal choice [J].
Amasino, Dianna R. ;
Sullivan, Nicolette J. ;
Kranton, Rachel E. ;
Huettel, Scott A. .
NATURE HUMAN BEHAVIOUR, 2019, 3 (04) :383-392
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2021, MATLAB version: 9.11.0 (R2021b)
[3]  
Armel KC, 2008, JUDGM DECIS MAK, V3, P396
[4]   STOCHASTIC CHOICE HEURISTICS [J].
ASCHENBRENNER, KM ;
ALBERT, D ;
SCHMALHOFER, F .
ACTA PSYCHOLOGICA, 1984, 56 (1-3) :153-166
[5]   Shining in the Center: Central Gaze Cascade Effect on Product Choice [J].
Atalay, A. Selin ;
Bodur, H. Onur ;
Rasolofoarison, Dina .
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, 2012, 39 (04) :848-866
[6]   Online evaluation of novel choices by simultaneous representation of multiple memories [J].
Barron, Helen C. ;
Dolan, Raymond J. ;
Behrens, Timothy E. J. .
NATURE NEUROSCIENCE, 2013, 16 (10) :1492-+
[7]   To Know and to Care: How Awareness and Valuation of the Future Jointly Shape Consumer Spending [J].
Bartels, Daniel M. ;
Urminsky, Oleg .
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, 2015, 41 (06) :1469-1485
[8]   MEASURING UTILITY BY A SINGLE-RESPONSE SEQUENTIAL METHOD [J].
BECKER, GM ;
DEGROOT, MH ;
MARSCHAK, J .
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE, 1964, 9 (03) :226-232
[9]   OPPORTUNITY COSTS - EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH [J].
BECKER, SW ;
RONEN, J ;
SORTER, GH .
JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING RESEARCH, 1974, 12 (02) :317-329
[10]   Preference accumulation as a process model of desirability ratings [J].
Bhatia, Sudeep ;
Pleskac, Timothy J. .
COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY, 2019, 109 :47-67