Theories and computational models of decision-making usually focus on how strongly different attributes are weighted in choice, for example, as a function of their importance or salience to the decision-maker. However, when different attributes affect the decision process is a question that has received far less attention. Here, we investigated whether the timing of attribute consideration has a unique influence on decision-making by using a time-varying drift diffusion model and data from four separate experiments. Experimental manipulations of attention and neural activity demonstrated that we can dissociate the processes that determine the relative weighting strength and timing of attribute consideration. Thus, the processes determining either the weighting strengths or the timing of attributes in decision-making can independently adapt to changes in the environment or goals. Quantifying these separate influences of timing and weighting on choice improves our understanding and predictions of individual differences in decision behaviour.
Your institute does not have access to this article
Open Access articles citing this article.
Current Psychology Open Access 12 August 2022
Scientific Reports Open Access 05 July 2022
Nature Communications Open Access 17 December 2021
Subscribe to Nature+
Get immediate online access to the entire Nature family of 50+ journals
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $9.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
The code for fitting the diffusion models and running the other analyses is openly available on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/g76fn/.
Mazur, J. E. in Quantitative Analyses of Behavior: The Effect of Delay and of Intervening Events on Reinforcement Value Vol. 5 (eds Commons, M. L. et al.) 55–73 (Erlbaum, 1987).
Fehr, E. & Schmidt, K. M. A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Q. J. Econ. 114, 817–868 (1999).
Laibson, D. Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. Q. J. Econ. 112, 443–477 (1997).
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica 47, 263–292 (1979).
Palminteri, S., Wyart, V. & Koechlin, E. The importance of falsification in computational cognitive modeling. Trends Cogn. Sci. 21, 425–433 (2017).
Carland, M. A., Marcos, E., Thura, D. & Cisek, P. Evidence against perfect integration of sensory information during perceptual decision making. J. Neurophysiol. 115, 915–930 (2016).
Summerfield, C. & Tsetsos, K. Building bridges between perceptual and economic decision-making: neural and computational mechanisms. Front. Neurosci. 6, 70 (2012).
Gluth, S., Hotaling, J. M. & Rieskamp, J. The attraction effect modulates reward prediction errors and intertemporal choices. J. Neurosci. 37, 371–382 (2017).
Krajbich, I., Armel, C. & Rangel, A. Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice. Nat. Neurosci. 13, 1292–1298 (2010).
Reeck, C., Wall, D. & Johnson, E. J. Search predicts and changes patience in intertemporal choice. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11890–11895 (2017).
Hunt, L. T., Dolan, R. J. & Behrens, T. E. Hierarchical competitions subserving multi-attribute choice. Nat. Neurosci. 17, 1613–1622 (2014).
Kunar, M. A., Watson, D. G., Tsetsos, K. & Chater, N. The influence of attention on value integration. Atten Percept. Psychophys. 79, 1615–1627 (2017).
Forstmann, B. U., Ratcliff, R. & Wagenmakers, E. J. Sequential sampling models in cognitive neuroscience: advantages, applications, and extensions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 67, 641–666 (2016).
Clithero, J. A. Improving out-of-sample predictions using response times and a model of the decision process. J. Econ. Behav. Organ 148, 344–375 (2018).
Webb, R. The (neural) dynamics of stochastic choice. Manage. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2931 (2018).
Sullivan, N., Hutcherson, C., Harris, A. & Rangel, A. Dietary self-control is related to the speed with which attributes of healthfulness and tastiness are processed. Psychol. Sci. 26, 122–134 (2015).
Lim, S. L., Penrod, M. T., Ha, O. R., Bruce, J. M. & Bruce, A. S. Calorie labeling promotes dietary self-control by shifting the temporal dynamics of health- and taste-attribute integration in overweight individuals. Psychol. Sci. 29, 447–462 (2018).
Hare, T. A., Malmaud, J. & Rangel, A. Focusing attention on the health aspects of foods changes value signals in vmPFC and improves dietary choice. J. Neurosci. 31, 11077–11087 (2011).
Ratcliff, R. A note on modeling accumulation of information when the rate of accumulation changes over time. J. Math. Psychol. 21, 178–184 (1980).
Ratcliff, R. A theory of memory retrieval. Psychol. Rev. 85, 59–108 (1978).
Ratcliff, R., Smith, P. L., Brown, S. D. & McKoon, G. Diffusion decision model: current issues and history. Trends Cogn. Sci. 20, 260–281 (2016).
Holmes, W. R., Trueblood, J. S. & Heathcote, A. A new framework for modeling decisions about changing information: the piecewise linear ballistic accumulator model. Cogn. Psychol. 85, 1–29 (2016).
Cisek, P., Puskas, G. A. & El-Murr, S. Decisions in changing conditions: the urgency-gating model. J. Neurosci. 29, 11560–11571 (2009).
Usher, M. & McClelland, J. L. The time course of perceptual choice: the leaky, competing accumulator model. Psychol. Rev. 108, 550–592 (2001).
Brown, S. D. & Heathcote, A. The simplest complete model of choice response time: linear ballistic accumulation. Cogn. Psychol. 57, 153–178 (2008).
Busemeyer, J. R. & Townsend, J. T. Decision field theory: a dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychol. Rev. 100, 432–459 (1993).
Roe, R. M., Busemeyer, J. R. & Townsend, J. T. Multialternative decision field theory: a dynamic connectionist model of decision making. Psychol. Rev. 108, 370–392 (2001).
Stewart, N., Chater, N. & Brown, G. D. Decision by sampling. Cogn. Psychol. 53, 1–26 (2006).
Ulrich, R., Schröter, H., Leuthold, H. & Birngruber, T. Automatic and controlled stimulus processing in conflict tasks: superimposed diffusion processes and delta functions. Cogn. Psychol. 78, 148–174 (2015).
Ratcliff, R. & Rouder, J. N. Modeling response times for two-choice decisions. Psychol. Sci. 9, 347–356 (1998).
Alós‐Ferrer, C. A dual-process diffusion model. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 31, 203–218 (2018).
Caplin, A. & Martin, D. The dual-process drift diffusion model: evidence from response times. Econ. Inq. 54, 1274–1282 (2016).
Foerde, K. et al. Assessment of test–retest reliability of a food choice task among healthy individuals. Appetite 123, 352–356 (2018).
Krawczyk, D. C. Contributions of the prefrontal cortex to the neural basis of human decision making. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 26, 631–664 (2002).
Han, J. E., Boachie, N., Garcia-Garcia, I., Michaud, A. & Dagher, A. Neural correlates of dietary self-control in healthy adults: a meta-analysis of functional brain imaging studies. Physiol. Behav. 192, 98–108 (2018).
Kable, J. W. & Glimcher, P. W. The neural correlates of subjective value during intertemporal choice. Nat. Neurosci. 10, 1625–1633 (2007).
Rushworth, M. F. & Behrens, T. E. Choice, uncertainty and value in prefrontal and cingulate cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 11, 389–397 (2008).
Ruff, C. C., Ugazio, G. & Fehr, E. Changing social norm compliance with noninvasive brain stimulation. Science 342, 482–484 (2013).
Shen, B. et al. High-definition tDCS alters impulsivity in a baseline-dependent manner. NeuroImage 143, 343–352 (2016).
Essex, B. G., Clinton, S. A., Wonderley, L. R. & Zald, D. H. The impact of the posterior parietal and dorsolateral prefrontal cortices on the optimization of long-term versus immediate value. J. Neurosci. 32, 15403–15413 (2012).
Cho, S. S. et al. Effect of continuous theta burst stimulation of the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex on cerebral blood flow changes during decision making. Brain Stimul. 5, 116–123 (2012).
Camus, M. et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex decreases valuations during food choices. Eur. J. Neurosci. 30, 1980–1988 (2009).
Figner, B. et al. Lateral prefrontal cortex and self-control in intertemporal choice. Nat. Neurosci. 13, 538–539 (2010).
Knoch, D. et al. Studying the neurobiology of social interaction with transcranial direct current stimulation-the example of punishing unfairness. Cereb. Cortex 18, 1987–1990 (2008).
Kool, W., McGuire, J. T., Wang, G. J. & Botvinick, M. M. Neural and behavioral evidence for an intrinsic cost of self-control. PLoS ONE 8, e72626 (2013).
Rudorf, S. & Hare, T. A. Interactions between dorsolateral and ventromedial prefrontal cortex underlie context-dependent stimulus valuation in goal-directed choice. J. Neurosci. 34, 15988–15996 (2014).
Zysset, S. et al. The neural implementation of multi-attribute decision making: a parametric fMRI study with human subjects. NeuroImage 31, 1380–1388 (2006).
Kahnt, T., Heinzle, J., Park, S. Q. & Haynes, J. D. Decoding different roles for vmPFC and dlPFC in multi-attribute decision making. NeuroImage 56, 709–715 (2011).
Enax, L., Hu, Y., Trautner, P. & Weber, B. Nutrition labels influence value computation of food products in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Obesity 23, 786–792 (2015).
Luo, S., Ainslie, G., Pollini, D., Giragosian, L. & Monterosso, J. R. Moderators of the association between brain activation and farsighted choice. NeuroImage 59, 1469–1477 (2012).
Hare, T. A., Camerer, C. F. & Rangel, A. Self-control in decision-making involves modulation of the vmPFC valuation system. Science 324, 646–648 (2009).
Hare, T. A., Hakimi, S. & Rangel, A. Activity in dlPFC and its effective connectivity to vmPFC are associated with temporal discounting. Front. Neurosci. 8, 50 (2014).
Maier, S. U., Makwana, A. B. & Hare, T. A. Acute stress impairs self-control in goal-directed choice by altering multiple functional connections within the brain’s decision circuits. Neuron 87, 621–631 (2015).
Marechal, M. A., Cohn, A., Ugazio, G. & Ruff, C. C. Increasing honesty in humans with noninvasive brain stimulation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 4360–4364 (2017).
Brevet-Aeby, C., Brunelin, J., Iceta, S., Padovan, C. & Poulet, E. Prefrontal cortex and impulsivity: interest of noninvasive brain stimulation. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 71, 112–134 (2016).
Caplin, A. Measuring and modeling attention. Annu. Rev. Econ. 8, 379–403 (2016).
Bhatia, S. Associations and the accumulation of preference. Psychol. Rev. 120, 522–543 (2013).
Johnson, E. J., Haubl, G. & Keinan, A. Aspects of endowment: a query theory of value construction. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 33, 461–474 (2007).
Weber, E. U. & Johnson, E. J. Mindful judgment and decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 60, 53–85 (2009).
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R. & Johnson, E. J. The Adaptive Decision Maker (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993).
Aron, A. R. From reactive to proactive and selective control: developing a richer model for stopping inappropriate responses. Biol. Psychiatry 69, e55–e68 (2011).
Castiglione, A., Wagner, J., Anderson, M. & Aron, A. R. Preventing a thought from coming to mind elicits increased right frontal beta just as stopping action does. Cereb. Cortex 29, 2160–2172 (2019).
Sims, C. A. Implications of rational inattention. J. Monetary Econ. 50, 665–690 (2003).
Caplin, A. & Dean, M. Revealed preference, rational inattention, and costly information acquisition. Am. Econ. Rev. 105, 2183–2203 (2015).
Krajbich, I. & Dean, M. How can neuroscience inform economics? Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 5, 51–57 (2015).
Giuliani, N. R. & Berkman, E. T. Craving is an affective state and its regulation can be understood in terms of the extended process model of emotion regulation. Psychol. Inq. 26, 48–53 (2015).
Gross, J. J. Emotion regulation: current status and future prospects. Psychol. Inq. 26, 1–26 (2015).
Eldar, E., Bae, G. J., Kurth-Nelson, Z., Dayan, P. & Dolan, R. J. Magnetoencephalography decoding reveals structural differences within integrative decision processes. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 670–681 (2018).
Maier, S. U. Mastering Temptation: Behavioral, Neural and Physiological Investigations of Self-Control in Goal-Directed Choice. PhD thesis, Univ. of Zurich (2016).
Nitsche, M. A. & Paulus, W. Sustained excitability elevations induced by transcranial DC motor cortex stimulation in humans. Neurology 57, 1899–1901 (2001).
Fritsch, B. et al. Direct current stimulation promotes BDNF-dependent synaptic plasticity: potential implications for motor learning. Neuron 66, 198–204 (2010).
Mullen, K., Ardia, D., Gil, D. L., Windover, D. & Cline, J. DEoptim: an R package for global optimization by differential evolution. J. Stat. Soft. 40, 1–26 (2011).
Kruschke, J. K. Doing Bayesian Data Analysis: A Tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan. 2nd edn (Academic Press, Elsevier, 2015).
Gneiting, T. & Raftery, A. E. Strictly proper scoring rules, prediction, and estimation. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 102, 359–378 (2007).
Kruschke, J. K. Bayesian estimation supersedes the t test. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 142, 573–603 (2013).
This study has been supported by Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) grants 320030_143443 and 32003B_166566 (to C.C.R. and T.A.H.), a Marie Curie International Incoming Fellowship PIIF-GA-2012-327196 (to A.R.B.) and EU FP7 grant 607310 (to T.A.H.). C.C.R. received support from the SNSF (grant no. 100019L_173248) and from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 725355, BRAINCODES). The funders had no role in the conceptualization, design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. The authors thank A. Makwana and A. Cubillo for contributing code for the food choice and control tasks, J. Price for help with data collection and documentation, and G. Lombardi for help with data collection and documentation as well as useful discussions about analysis strategies and implementation.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information Primary Handling Editor: Marike Schiffer
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Parameter recovery for the time-varying DDM with separate consideration onset times for tastiness and healthiness attributes. The plots in the first column show the distributions of all 272 generating and recovered relative weighting (a) and timing parameters (b). There was no significant difference between generating and recovered relative weighting (mean difference = 0.01, 95% HDI = [−0.36, 0.54], posterior probability of a difference > 0 = 0.662, Bayes factor = 0.140) or relative timing parameters (mean difference = −0.01, 95% HDI = [−0.03, 0.01], posterior probability of a difference > 0 = 0.105, Bayes factor = 0.024). The panels in the second column show the correlations between the generating and recovered relative weighting (c) and timing parameters (d). The red dotted line indicates the x = y identity line. Panel e) plots the error in relative weight recovery against the error in relative timing recovery. This plot shows that there is no significant correlation between the two types of error when fitting the model (r = − 0.1, 95% HDI = [−0.215; 0.018], posterior probability of observing a negative correlation = 0.95). The grey shaded area (panels c-e) signifies the 95% confidence interval.
Cumulative distributions for response times by participant type, choice outcome and data source. Participants estimated to consider taste or health first are plotted in the top and bottom rows, respectively. Response times for choices in favour of (91) less healthy but more tasty (LH_MT), (2) more healthy but less tasty (MH_LT), or (3) both more healthy and more tasty (MH_MT) outcomes are shown in columns 1-3, respectively. Choices in favour of the option rated as less healthy and less tasty were rarely made (less than 5% of trials) and are omitted for clarity. Responses generated by human participants are shown in green lines. Responses generated by simulated agents using the best-fitting sDDM, tDDM, and bDDM parameters are shown in orange, purple, and magenta lines respectively. All three models can recreate the RT patterns in the empirical data equally well when choice outcomes align with the attribute participants consider first. However, the sDDM and bDDM both generate response times that are too fast relative to the empirical data when participants that consider taste first ultimately choose in favour of a more healthy, but less tasty option (row 1, column 2) or if participants that consider health first ultimately choose in favour of a less healthy, but more tasty option (row 2, column 1). In contrast, the tDDM is able to reproduce the observed response time distributions in these cases well.
Relative start times in seconds for healthiness compared to tastiness for all participants in each study. Positive values indicate that tastiness is considered before healthiness and negative values that healthiness is considered before tastiness. In each column every dot is a separate participant. The thick black horizontal bars represent within-study means and the rectangular bands indicate the 95% highest density intervals (HDIs). Dataset abbreviations: MRT = data from the computer-mouse response trials in Sullivan et al 2015; IAC = data from the natural choice condition in Hare et al 2011; GFC = newly collected data from the first session/day of an experiment combining gambles and food choices; TDCS = newly collected data from the pre-stimulation baseline choices in our tDCS experiment.
About this article
Cite this article
Maier, S.U., Raja Beharelle, A., Polanía, R. et al. Dissociable mechanisms govern when and how strongly reward attributes affect decisions. Nat Hum Behav 4, 949–963 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0893-y
Scientific Reports (2022)
Current Psychology (2022)
Changes in brain and behavior during food-based decision-making following treatment of anorexia nervosa
Journal of Eating Disorders (2021)
Scientific Reports (2021)
npj Clean Water (2021)