How distinct are intuition and deliberation? An eye-tracking analysis of instruction-induced decision modes

By N. Horstmann, Andrea Ahlgrimm, A. Glöckner. Judgment and Decision Making, 2009

190 citations recorded by the source corpus.

In recent years, numerous studies comparing intuition and deliberation have been published. However, relatively little is known about the cognitive processes underlying the two decision modes. In two studies, we analyzed the effects of decision mode instructions on processes of information search and integration, using eye-tracking technology in a between-participants (Study 1) and a within-participants (Study 2) design. Our findings indicate that the instruction to deliberate does not necessarily lead to qualitatively different information processing compared to the instruction to decide intuitively. We found no difference in mean fixation duration and the distribution of short, medium and long fixations. Short fixations in particular prevailed under both decision mode instructions, while long fixations indicating a conscious and calculation-based information processing were rarely observed. Instruction-induced deliberation led to a higher number of fixations, a more complete information search and more repeated information inspections. We interpret our findings as support for the hypothesis that intuitive and deliberate decision modes share the same basic processes which are supplemented by additional operations in the deliberate decision mode.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, General Decision Sciences, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7d556668a94c4b0df3aaa6bbdbeb6f2b487429e5

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In General Decision Sciences

In Safety Research

Citations in the corpus

Predicting Advertising success beyond Traditional Measures: New Insights from Neurophysiological Methods and Market Response Modeling (2015, background): “Longer dwell times and fewer fixations represent more detailed processing (Horstmann, Ahlgrimm, and Glockner 2009).”
An eye‐tracking study on information processing in risky decisions: Evidence for compensatory strategies based on automatic processes (2011, background): “Currently, no reference values for time pressure decisions are available and further research will be needed to explore this issue (see also Horstmann et al., 2009).”
The Attentional Drift-Diffusion Model Extends to Simple Purchasing Decisions (2012, background): “…seminal pioneering work of Johnson and colleagues (Johnson et al., 1988, 2002, 2007; Camerer and Johnson, 2004), as well as more recent applications (Russo et al., 2006, 2008; Raab and Johnson, 2007; Horstmann et al., 2009; Glockner and Herbold, 2011; Russo and Yong, 2011; Glockner et al., 2012).”
Beyond dual-process models: A categorisation of processes underlying intuitive judgement and decision making (2010, methodology): “…physiological arousal, or single fixation durations to differentiate between the mechanisms (e.g., Glöckner & Herbold, in press; Glöckner & Hochman, 2009; Horstmann et al., 2009; see Glöckner, 2009, for an extended statistical analysis method; see Glöckner & Witteman, 2009, for an overview).”
Attention and choice: a review on eye movements in decision making. (2013, background): “Using a similar approach, Horstmann, Ahlgrimm, and Glöckner (2009) manipulated deliberate versus intuitive decisions, and found that deliberate decision making led to more fixations, information fixated, re-fixations, and attribute-wise transitions.”