Ashley Luckman is a lecturer in Consumer Behaviour and Decision Making at the University of Exeter Business School. He completed his PhD in Cognitive Psychology at the University of New South Wales, Australia in 2016. Following this he worked at the Centre for Economic Psychology of the University of Basel, and the Behavioural Science Group of Warwick Business School. He joined the management department at Exeter in 2021.
His research focuses on how people make decisions including the development of models of choice. He is particularly interested in decision involving risks or time delays, and multi-alternative decision-making.
Qualifications
B.Psych (Hons) University of Sydney, PhD University of New South Wales
Research interests
- Risky Choice
- Inter-temporal Choice
- Multi-alternative choice and context effects
- Models of choice.
- Process tracing
My research focuses on how people make decisions including the development of models of choice. I am particularly interested in understanding the cognitive processes by which people make their decisions.
Current interests include decisions involving risks and/or time delays, and multi-alternative decision-making (i.e. decisions between many different options, such as consumer products).
Research projects
A current interest is exploring the processes underlying consumer context effects, such as the attraction effect. In this project we use reason listing procedures and mouse-tracking to measure both high- and low-level processes.
I also have several ongoing projects exploring how people make decisions that involve risks. For instance, three current interests are: 1) preference reversals, i.e. how risk preferences vary depending on the way in which they are elicited; 2) the impacts of feedback on risk-preferences; and 3) how uncertainty in the timing of events impacts preferences.
Key publications | Publications by category | Publications by year
Publications by category
Journal articles
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.
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.
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.
Publications by year
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.
My current teaching focuses on research methods and quantitative statistics. These modules focus on teaching students the skills they need to both understand the research of others and conduct research of their own, from generating a research question through to interpreting and reporting their results.
Modules
2022/23
