The drift diffusion model provides a parsimonious explanation of decisions across neurobiological, psychological and behavioural levels of analysis. Although most drift diffusion model implementations assume that only a single value guides decisions, choices often involve multiple attributes that could make separable contributions to choice. Here we fit incentive-compatible dietary choices to a multi-attribute, time-dependent drift diffusion model, in which taste and health could differentially influence the evidence accumulation process. We find that these attributes shaped both the relative value signal and the latency of evidence accumulation in a manner consistent with participants’ idiosyncratic preferences. Moreover, by using a dietary prime, we showed how a healthy choice intervention alters multi-attribute, time-dependent drift diffusion model parameters that in turn predict prime-dependent choices. Our results reveal that different decision attributes make separable contributions to the strength and timing of evidence accumulation, providing new insights into the construction of interventions to alter the processes of choice.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data generated during this study are posted at the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/trak4/.
Custom codes used for stimulus presentation, analysis and modelling are posted at the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/d45un/
Ratcliff, R., Smith, P. L., Brown, S. D. & McKoon, G. Diffusion decision model: current issues and history. Trends Cogn. Sci. 20, 260–281 (2016).
Usher, M. & McClelland, J. L. The time course of perceptual choice: the leaky, competing accumulator model. Psychol. Rev. 108, 550–592 (2001).
Rangel, A. & Clithero, J. in Neuroeconomics: Decision Making and the Brain (eds P.W. Glimcher & E. Fehr) 125–148 (Academic, 2013).
Bogacz, R. Optimal decision-making theories: linking neurobiology with behaviour. Trends Cogn. Sci. 11, 118–125 (2007).
Krajbich, I., Armel, C. & Rangel, A. Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice. Nat. Neurosci. 13, 1292–1298 (2010).
Cavanagh, J. F., Wiecki, T. V., Kochar, A. & Frank, M. J. Eye tracking and pupillometry are indicators of dissociable latent decision processes. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 143, 1476–1488 (2014).
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).
Turner, B. M., van Maanen, L. & Forstmann, B. U. Informing cognitive abstractions through neuroimaging: the neural drift diffusion model. Psychol. Rev. 122, 312–336 (2015).
Ratcliff, R., Philiastides, M. G. & Sajda, P. Quality of evidence for perceptual decision making is indexed by trial-to-trial variability of the EEG. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 6539 (2009).
Hanes, D. P. & Schall, J. D. Neural control of voluntary movement initiation. Science 274, 427 (1996).
Gold, J. I. & Shadlen, M. N. Neural computations that underlie decisions about sensory stimuli. Trends Cogn. Sci. 5, 10–16 (2001).
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).
Hutcherson, C. A., Bushong, B. & Rangel, A. A neurocomputational model of altruistic choice and its implications. Neuron 87, 451–462 (2015).
Trueblood, J. S., Brown, S. D. & Heathcote, A. The multiattribute linear ballistic accumulator model of context effects in multialternative choice. Psychol. Rev. 121, 179–205 (2014).
Ulrich, R., Schroter, 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).
Schwarz, W. On the relationship between the redundant signals effect and temporal order judgments: parametric data and a new model. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 32, 558–573 (2006).
Rouder, J. N. Premature sampling in random walks. J. Math. Psychol. 40, 287–296 (1996).
Dambacher, M. & Hübner, R. Time pressure affects the efficiency of perceptual processing in decisions under conflict. Psychol. Res. 79, 83–94 (2015).
Pratte, M. S., Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D. & Feng, C. Exploring the differences in distributional properties between Stroop and Simon effects using delta plots. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 72, 2013–2025 (2010).
Hübner, R., Steinhauser, M. & Lehle, C. A dual-stage two-phase model of selective attention. Psychol. Rev. 117, 759–784 (2010).
Bompas, A. & Sumner, P. Saccadic inhibition reveals the timing of automatic and voluntary signals in the human brain. J. Neurosci. 31, 12501 (2011).
Thorpe, S., Fize, D. & Marlot, C. Speed of processing in the human visual system. Nature 381, 520–522 (1996).
Liberman, N. & Trope, Y. The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science 322, 1201–1205 (2008).
Schmiedek, F., Oberauer, K., Wilhelm, O., Suss, H. M. & Wittmann, W. W. Individual differences in components of reaction time distributions and their relations to working memory and intelligence. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 136, 414–429 (2007).
Webb, T. L. & Sheeran, P. Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychol. Bull. 132, 249–268 (2006).
Marteau, T. M., Hollands, G. J. & Fletcher, P. C. Changing human behavior to prevent disease: the importance of targeting automatic processes. Science 337, 1492–1495 (2012).
Johnson, E. J. et al. Beyond nudges: tools of a choice architecture. Mark. Lett. 23, 487–504 (2012).
Cummins, S., Flint, E. & Matthews, S. A. New neighborhood grocery store increased awareness of food access but did not alter dietary habits or obesity. Health Aff. 33, 283–291 (2014).
Appelhans, B. M. et al. Delay discounting and intake of ready-to-eat and away-from-home foods in overweight and obese women. Appetite 59, 576–584 (2012).
Marteau, T. M., Ogilvie, D., Roland, M., Suhrcke, M. & Kelly, M. P. Judging nudging: can nudging improve population health? BMJ 342, d228 (2011).
Forstmeier, S., Drobetz, R. & Maercker, A. The delay of gratification test for adults: validating a behavioral measure of self-motivation in a sample of older people. Motiv. Emot. 35, 118–134 (2011).
Ratcliff, R., Thapar, A. & McKoon, G. Application of the diffusion model to two-choice tasks for adults 75−90 years old. Psychol. Aging 22, 56–66 (2007).
Ratcliff, R., Thapar, A. & McKoon, G. Aging and individual differences in rapid two-choice decisions. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 13, 626–635 (2006).
van Maanen, L. et al. Neural correlates of trial-to-trial fluctuations in response caution. J. Neurosci. 31, 17488 (2011).
Mansfield, E. L., Karayanidis, F., Jamadar, S., Heathcote, A. & Forstmann, B. U. Adjustments of response threshold during task switching: a model-based functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J. Neurosci. 31, 14688 (2011).
Rae, B., Heathcote, A., Donkin, C., Averell, L. & Brown, S. The hare and the tortoise: emphasizing speed can change the evidence used to make decisions. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn Mem. Cogn. 40, 1226–1243 (2014).
Lerche, V. & Voss, A. Model complexity in diffusion modeling: benefits of making the model more parsimonious. Front. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01324 (2016).
Lerche, V. & Voss, A. Retest reliability of the parameters of the Ratcliff diffusion model. Psychol. Res. 81, 629–652 (2017).
van Ravenzwaaij, D. & Oberauer, K. How to use the diffusion model: parameter recovery of three methods: EZ, fast-dm, and DMAT. J. Math. Psychol. 53, 463–473 (2009).
Preacher, K. J. & Hayes, A. F. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 36, 717–731 (2004).
Ratcliff, R. A theory of memory retrieval. Psychol. Rev. 85, 59–108 (1978).
Hare, T., Camerer, C. F. & Rangel, A. Self-control in decision-making involves modulation of the vmPFC valuation system. Science 324, 646–648 (2009).
Shiv, B. & Fedorikhin, A. Heart and mind in conflict: the interplay of affect and cognition in consumer decision making. J. Consum. Res. 26, 278–292 (1999).
Sokol-Hessner, P., Hutcherson, C., Hare, T. & Rangel, A. Decision value computation in DLPFC and VMPFC adjusts to the available decision time. Eur. J. Neurosci. 35, 1065–1074 (2012).
Milosavljevic, M., Malmaud, J., Huth, A., Koch, C. & Rangel, A. The drift diffusion model can account for the accuracy and reaction time of value-based choices under high and low time pressure. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 5, 437–449 (2010).
Loewenstein, G. & Prelec, D. Anomalies in intertemporal choice: evidence and an Interpretation. Q. J. Econ. 107, 573–597 (1992).
Chabris, C. F., Laibson, D., Morris, C. L., Schuldt, J. P. & Taubinsky, D. Individual laboratory-measured discount rates predict field behavior. Working Paper Series No. 14270. National Bureau of Economic Research https://doi.org/10.3386/w14270 (2008).
Berns, G. S., Laibson, D. & Loewenstein, G. Intertemporal choice – toward an integrative framework. Trends Cogn. Sci. 11, 482–488 (2007).
Ratcliff, R. A note on modeling accumulation of information when the rate of accumulation changes over time. J. Math. Psychol. 21, 178–184, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(80)90006-1 (1980).
Samuelson, P. A note on measurement of utility. Rev. Econ. Stud. 4, 155–161 (1937).
Mazur, J. E. in Quantitative Analysis of Behavior Vol. 5. The Effect of Delay and Intervening Events on Reinforcement Value (eds J.E. Mazur, J.A. Nevin, & H. Rachlin) 55–73 (Erlbaum, 1987).
Laibson, D. Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. Q. J. Econ. 112, 443–478 (1997).
Gluth, S. & Rieskamp, J. Variability in behavior that cognitive models do not explain can be linked to neuroimaging data. J. Math. Psychol. 76, 104–116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2016.04.012 (2017).
Hunt, L. T., Dolan, R. J. & Behrens, T. E. J. Hierarchical competitions subserving multi-attribute choice. Nat. Neurosci. 17, 1613, https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3836; https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.3836 (2014).
Brainard, D. H. The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spat. Vis. 10, 433–436 (1997).
Sullivan, N. J., Fitzsimons, G. J., Platt, M. L. & Huettel, S. A. Indulgent foods can paradoxically promote disciplined dietary choices. Psychol. Sci. 30, 273–287 (2019).
Sullivan, N. J. The Neurocomputational Basis of Self-Control Success and Failure. PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology (2015).
This work was conducted using institutional funding provided by Duke University. The authors thank I. Krajbich for suggesting the use of the term ‘latency’ to describe attribute-wise non-decision times.
The authors have no competing interests as defined by Nature Research, or other interests that might be perceived to influence the interpretation of the article.
Peer review information Nature Human Behaviour thanks Eran Eldar, Sanjay Manohar and Uku Vainik for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Participants made 300 binary choices with free response time. Foods were displayed on the left and right sides of the screen. After keyboard response, the chosen food was highlighted in green for 200 ms to reflect participant response. Between trials, a fixation cross was displayed in the center of the screen for between 200 and 500 ms (mean 350 ms; i.i.d. distributed). Although icons are displayed here, stimuli used were high-resolution real common snack foods photographed on a black background. Icons made by Nikita Golubev & Vectors Market from Flaticon.com.
a, Each ‘true’ mtDDM parameter is plotted against its recovered estimate. The distribution of differences between true and recovered parameters are shown below each scatterplot. b, The difference in Drift Slopes and Latencies for Taste and Health are plotted, with the true parameters of the simulations plotted against their recovered parameters. The distribution of differences in true and recovered parameter differences (Taste-Health) are shown below each scatterplot. In each scatter plot, the black line represents a perfect correlation line. In each histogram, the black line represents the mean difference between true and recovered parameter.
Please add a caption for Extended Data Fig. 3 here.
Extended Data Fig. 4 Association between health’s drift latency, response times, and healthy choices.
Models 3 and 4 use latency fit to one half of trials to predict healthy choice on the other half of trials.
a, Drift slopes for food tastiness and healthfulness by prime condition. b, Difference in taste and health drift slopes by prime condition. For both plots, the center line is the median and box edges represent the 25th and 75th percentiles. The error bars represent the extent of the data MATLAB’s boxplot considered to be not outliers, and black crosses represent outliers. Outliers are determined using MATLAB’s default algorithm, in which outliers are data points larger (smaller) than the 75th (25th) percentile plus (minus) 1.5 times the difference between the 75th and 25th percentiles.
About this article
Cite this article
Sullivan, N.J., Huettel, S.A. Healthful choices depend on the latency and rate of information accumulation. Nat Hum Behav 5, 1698–1706 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01154-0
This article is cited by
A value accumulation account of unhealthy food choices: testing the influence of outcome salience under varying time constraints
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications (2023)
Peer presence increases the prosocial behavior of adolescents by speeding the evaluation of outcomes for others
Scientific Reports (2022)