Publications by year
In Press
Olschewski S, Luckman A, Mason A, Ludvig EA, Konstantinidis E (In Press). The future of decisions from experience : connecting real-world decision problems to cognitive processes.
Perspectives on Psychological ScienceAbstract:
The future of decisions from experience : connecting real-world decision problems to cognitive processes
In many important real-world decision domains, such as finance, the environment, and health, behavior is strongly influenced by experience. Renewed interest in studying this influence led to important advancements in the understanding of these decisions from experience (DfE) in the last 20 years. Building on this literature, in this perspective, we suggest ways the standard experimental design should be extended to better approach important real-world DfE. These extensions include among others the introduction of more complex choice situations, delayed feedback, and social interactions. Acting upon experiences in these richer and more complicated environments requires extensive cognitive processes to make a decision. Therefore, we argue for integrating cognitive processes more explicitly into experimental research in DfE. These cognitive processes include attention to and perception of numeric and non-numeric experiences, the influence of episodic and semantic memory, and the mental models involved in learning processes. Understanding these basic cognitive processes can advance the modeling, understanding and prediction of DfE in the laboratory and in the real world. We highlight the potential of experimental research in DfE for theory integration across the behavioral, decision, and cognitive sciences. Furthermore, this research could become an important method to better inform decision making and policy interventions.
Abstract.
2023
Ballard T, Luckman A, Konstantinidis E (2023). A systematic investigation into the reliability of inter-temporal choice model parameters.
Psychon Bull RevAbstract:
A systematic investigation into the reliability of inter-temporal choice model parameters.
Decades of work have been dedicated to developing and testing models that characterize how people make inter-temporal choices. Although parameter estimates from these models are often interpreted as indices of latent components of the choice process, little work has been done to examine their reliability. This is problematic because estimation error can bias conclusions that are drawn from these parameter estimates. We examine the reliability of parameter estimates from 11 prominent models of inter-temporal choice by (a) fitting each model to data from three previous experiments with designs representative of those typically used to study inter-temporal choice, (b) examining the consistency of parameters estimated for the same person based on different choice sets, and (c) conducting a parameter recovery analysis. We find generally low correlations between parameters estimated for the same person from the different choice sets. Moreover, parameter recovery varies considerably between models and the experimental designs upon which parameter estimates are based. We conclude that many parameter estimates reported in previous research are likely unreliable and provide recommendations on how to enhance the reliability of inter-temporal choice models for measurement purposes.
Abstract.
Author URL.
DOI.
2022
Olschewski S, Luckman A, Mason A, Ludvig EA, Konstantinidis E (2022). The Future of Decisions from Experience: Connecting Real-World Decision Problems to Cognitive Processes.
DOI.
2021
Luckman A, Zeitoun H, Isoni A, Loomes G, Vlaev I, Powdthavee N, Read D (2021). Risk compensation during COVID-19: the impact of face mask usage on social distancing.
J Exp Psychol Appl,
27(4), 722-738.
Abstract:
Risk compensation during COVID-19: the impact of face mask usage on social distancing.
To reduce the spread of COVID-19, governments around the world have recommended or required minimum physical distancing between individuals, as well as either mandating or recommending the use of face coverings (masks) in certain circumstances. When multiple risk reduction activities can be adopted, people may engage in risk compensation by responding to a reduced (perceived) risk exposure due to one activity by increasing risk exposure due to another. We tested for risk compensation in two online experiments that investigated whether either wearing a mask or seeing others wearing masks reduced physical distancing. We presented participants with stylized images of everyday scenarios involving themselves with or without a mask and a stranger with or without a mask. For each scenario, participants indicated the minimum distance they would keep from the stranger. In line with risk compensation, we found that participants indicated they would stand, sit, or walk closer to the stranger if either of them was wearing a mask. This form of risk compensation was stronger for those who believed masks were effective at preventing catching or spreading COVID-19, and for younger (18-40 years) compared to older (over 65 years) participants. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
Abstract.
Author URL.
DOI.
2020
Luckman A, Donkin C, Newell BR (2020). An evaluation and comparison of models of risky intertemporal choice.
Psychol Rev,
127(6), 1097-1138.
Abstract:
An evaluation and comparison of models of risky intertemporal choice.
Risky intertemporal choices involve choosing between options that can differ in outcomes, their probability of receipt, and the delay until receipt. To date, there has been no attempt to systematically test, compare, and evaluate theoretical models of such choices. We contribute to theory development by generating predictions from 7 models for 3 common manipulations-magnitude, certainty, and immediacy-across 6 different types of risky intertemporal choices. Qualitative and quantitative comparisons of model predictions to data from an experiment involving almost 4,000 individual choices revealed that an attribute comparison-model, newly modified to incorporate risky intertemporal choices, (the risky intertemporal choice heuristic or RITCH) provided the best account of the data. Results are consistent with growing evidence in support of attribute comparison models in the risky and intertemporal choice literatures, and suggest that the relatively poorer fits of translation-based models reflect their inability to predict the differential impact of certainty and immediacy manipulations. Future theories of risky intertemporal choice may benefit from treating risk and time as independent dimensions, and focusing on attribute-comparison rather than value-comparison processes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Abstract.
Author URL.
DOI.
2017
Luckman A, Donkin C, Newell BR (2017). Can a single model account for both risky choices and inter-temporal choices? Testing the assumptions underlying models of risky inter-temporal choice.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
25(2), 785-792.
DOI.
Luckman A, Donkin C, Newell BR (2017). People Wait Longer when the Alternative is Risky: the Relation Between Preferences in Risky and Inter-temporal Choice.
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,
30(5), 1078-1092.
Abstract:
People Wait Longer when the Alternative is Risky: the Relation Between Preferences in Risky and Inter-temporal Choice
In two experiments, we demonstrate that despite indicating indifference when probed about risk or delay in isolation, when forced to explicitly trade-off between the two, participants prefer delayed over risky rewards. This pattern of findings sets a boundary condition for any common utility-based comparison process involving both risk and delay. Furthermore, this change from indifference-in-isolation to delay-preference-in-a-trade-off strengthens as reward amount increases. Exploratory modeling results suggest that the shift in preference can be explained by allowing for different discount rates for delay-only choices compared with when delay is in competition with risk. This explanation is better than one in which probability weighting is different between risk-only choices and risks considered in the presence of a delay. Together, the empirical and modeling work lays a path for future investigations of why and when people's evaluation of the properties of risky and delayed choices vary as a function of the alternatives on offer. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Abstract.
DOI.
