Abstract
AbstractIn decisions under risk, more numerate people are typically more likely to choose the option with the highest expected value (EV) than less numerate ones. Prior research indicates that this finding cannot be explained by differences in the reliance on explicit EV calculation. The current work uses the attentional Drift Diffusion Model as a unified computational framework to formalize three candidate mechanisms of pre-decisional information search and processing—namely, attention allocation, amount of deliberation, and distorted processing of value—which may differ between more and less numerate people and explain differences in decision quality. Computational modeling of an eye-tracking experiment on risky choice demonstrates that numeracy is linked to how people allocate their attention across the options, how much evidence they require before committing to a choice, and also how strongly they distort currently non-attended information during preference formation. Together, especially the latter two mechanisms largely mediate the effect of numeracy on decision quality. Overall, the current work disentangles and quantifies latent aspects of the dynamics of preference formation, explicates how their interplay may give rise to manifest differences in decision quality, and thereby provides a fully formalized, mechanistic explanation for the link between numeracy and decision quality in risky choice.
Funder
Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference58 articles.
1. David-Nightingale, F. Games, Gods and Gambling: The Origins and History of Probability and Statistical Ideas from the Earliest Times to the Newtonian Era (Griffin, 1962).
2. Pachur, T., Mata, R. & Hertwig, R. Who dares, who errs? Disentangling cognitive and motivational roots of age differences in decisions under risk. Psychol. Sci. 28, 504–518. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616687729 (2017).
3. Zilker, V., Hertwig, R. & Pachur, T. Age differences in risk attitude are shaped by option complexity. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 149, 1644–1683. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000741 (2020).
4. Peters, E. et al. Numeracy and decision making. Psychol. Sci. 17, 407–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01720.x (2006).
5. Cokely, E. T., Galesic, M., Schulz, E., Ghazal, S. & Garcia-Retamero, R. Measuring risk literacy: The Berlin Numeracy Test. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 7, 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500001819 (2012).