Biasing simple choices by manipulating relative visual attention

Judgment and Decision Making

Volumn 3, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 396-403

  Armel, K Carrie ^a   Beaumel, Aurelie ^a   Rangel, Antonio ^b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Construction of preferences; Neuroeconomics; Race to barrier models; Visual attention

Indexed keywords

EID: 70350173162     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19302975     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Armel, C. & Rangel, A. (2008). The impact of computation time and experience on decision values. American Economic Review, 98, 163-168.
2. Bogacz, R. (2007) Optimal decision-making theories linking neurobiology and behavior. TRENDS in Cognitive Science, 11,118-125.
3. Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and afffect: overview and metaa-analysis of research, 1968-1987. Psychological Bulleting, 106, 265-289.
4. Busemeyer, J. R., & Diederich, A. (2002). Survey of decision field theory. Mathematical Social Sciences, 43, 345-370.
5. Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic cognition approach to decision making. Psychological Review, 100, 432-459.
6. Krajbich, I., Armel, K. C., & Rangel, A. (2008). The role of visual attention in goal-directed choice. Caltech manuscript.
7. Lichtenstein, S. & Slovic, P. (Eds.) (2006) The construction of preference. New York: Cambridge University Press.
8. Rangel, A. (2008). The computation and comparison of value in goal-directed choice. Forthcoming in Neuroeconomics: Decision-making and the brain. P. Glimcher, C. Camerer, E. Fehr, & R. Poldrack (eds). New York: Elsevier.
9. Shimojo, S., Simeon, C., Shimojo, E., & Scheier, Y. (2003). Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 1317-1322.
10. Smith, P. L., & Ratcliff, R. (2004). Psychology and neurobiology of simple decisions. TRENDS in Neurosciences, 27, 161-168.
11. Weber, E. U. & Kirsner, B. (1997). Reasons for rankdependent utility evaluation. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14, 41-61.
12. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representations of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297-323.
13. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences. Americal Psychologist, 35, 151-175.
14. Zajonc, R. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 225-228.