Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

A Dynamic Dual Process Model of Intertemporal Choice

  • Adele Diederich (a1) and Wenjia Joyce Zhao (a2)

Abstract

Dual process theories of decision making describe choice as the result of an automatic System 1, which is quick to activate but behaves impulsively, and a deliberative System 2, which is slower to activate but makes decisions in a rational and controlled manner. However, most existent dual process theories are verbal descriptions and do not generate testable qualitative and quantitative predictions. In this paper, we describe a formalized dynamic dual process model framework of intertemporal choice that allows for precise, experimentally testable predictions regarding choice probability and response time distributions. The framework is based on two-stage stochastic process models to account for the two postulated systems and to capture the dynamics and uncertainty involved in decision making. Using quasi closed form solutions, we illustrate how different factors (timing of System 1, time constraint, and preferences in both systems), which are reflected in the model parameters, influence qualitative and quantitative model predictions. Furthermore, we show how an existing static-deterministic model on intertemporal choice can be implemented in the framework allowing for testable predictions. The proposed framework can bring novel insights into the processes underlying intertemporal choices.

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Adele Diederich, Jacobs University. Department of Life Sciences & Chemistry. 28759 Bremen (Germany). E-mail: a.diederich@jacobs-university.de

Footnotes

Hide All

This paper grew out of an invited talk given at the VII Advanced International Seminar – Mathematical Models of Decision Making Processes: State of the Art and Challenges held at the School of Psychology, Universidad Complutense de Madrid (Spain) in October 2018 (http://eventos.ucm.es/go/DecisionMakingModels). This paper was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Grant /Award Number: DI 506/15-1).

How to cite this article:

Diederich, A., & Zhao, W. J. (2019). A dynamic dual process Model of Intertemporal Choice. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 22. e54. Doi:10.1017/sjp.2019.53

Footnotes

References

Hide All
Alós-Ferrer, C. (2018). A dual-process diffusion model. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 31, 2032018. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1960
Baron, J., & Gürcay, B. (2017). A meta-analysis of response-time tests of the sequential two-systems model of moral judgment. Memory & Cognition, 45, 566575. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0686-8
Brown, S., & Heathcote, A. (2005). A ballistic model of choice response time. Psychological Review, 112, 117128. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.117
Burks, S. V., Carpenter, J. P., Goette, L., & Rustichini, A (2009). Cognitive skills affect economic preferences, strategic behavior, and job attachment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(19), 77457750. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0812360106
Busemeyer, J. R., & Diederich, A. (2002). Survey of decision field theory. Mathematical Social Sciences, 43, 345370. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-4896(02)00016-1
Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic cognition approach to decisión making. Psychological Review, 100, 432459.
Dai, J., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2014). A probabilistic, dynamic, and attribute-wise model of intertemporal choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(4), 14891514. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035976
Diederich, A. (1997). Dynamic stochastic models for decision making with time constraints. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 41(3), 260274. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmps.1997.1167
Diederich, A. (2008). A further test on sequential sampling models accounting for payoff effects on response bias in perceptual decision tasks. Perception and Psychophysics, 70(2), 229256.
Diederich, A. (2016). A multistage attention-switching model account for payoff effects on perceptual decision tasks with manipulated processing order. Decision, 3(2), 81114. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmps.1997.1167
Diederich, A., & Oswald, P. (2014). Sequential sampling model for multiattribute choice alternatives with random attention time and processing order. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, Article 697. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00697
Diederich, A., & Oswald, P. (2016). Multi-stage sequential sampling models with finite or infinite time horizon and variable boundaries. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 74, 128145.
Diederich, A., & Trueblood, J. S. (2018). A dynamic dual process model of risky decision making. Psychological Review, 125(2), 270292. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000087
Dolan, R. J., & Dayan, P. (2013). Goals and habits in the brain. Neuron, 80(2), 312325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.09.007
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2006). The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 378395. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193858
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255278.
Figner, B., Knoch, D., Johnson, E. J., Krosch, A. R., Lisanby, S. H., Fehr, E., & Weber, E. U. (2010). Lateral prefrontal cortex and self-control in intertemporal choice. Nature Neuroscience, 13(5), 538539. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2516
Fudenberg, D., & Levine, D. K. (2006). A dual-self model of impulse control. American Economic Review, 96, 14491476. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.96.5.1449
Gawronski, B., & Creighton, L. A. (2013). Dual process theories. In Carlston, D. (Series Ed.), Oxford Library of Psychology. The Oxford handbook of social cognition (pp. 282312). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hammond, K. R. (1996). Human judgment and social policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hare, T. A., Camerer, C. F., & Rangel, A. (2009). Selfes modulation of the vmPFC valuation system. Science, 324(5927), 646648.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 4981). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Keren, G., & Schul, Y. (2009). Two is not always better than one: A critical evaluation of two-system theories. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(6), 533550. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01164.x
Krajbich, I., Bartling, B., Hare, T., & Fehr, E. (2015). Rethinking fast and slow based on a critique of reaction-time reverse inference. Nature Communications, 6, Article 7455. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8455
Lindner, F., & Rose, J. (2017). No need for more time: Intertemporal allocation decisions under time pressure. Journal of Economic Psychology, 60, 5370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2016.12.004
Loewenstein, G., O’Donoghue, T., & Bhatia, S. (2015). Modeling the interplay between affect and deliberation. Decision, 2, 5581. https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000029
McClure, S. M., Laibson, D. I., Loewenstein, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). Separate neural systems value immediate and delayed monetary rewards. Science, 306(5695), 503507. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1100907
McClure, S. M., Ericson, K. M., Laibson, D. I., Loewenstein, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2007). Time discounting for primary rewards. The Journal of Neuroscience, 27(21), 57965804. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4246-06.2007
Mukherjee, K. (2010). A dual system model of preferences under risk. Psychological Review, 117, 243255. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017884
Osman, M. (2004). An evaluation of dual-process theories of reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 9881010. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196730
Peters, J., & Büchel, C. (2011). The neural mechanisms of inter-temporal decision-making: Understanding variability. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(5), 227239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.03.002
Rangel, A., Camerer, C., & Montague, P. R. (2008). A framework for studying the neurobiology of value-based decision making. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(7), 545556. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2357
Rodriguez, C. A., Turner, B. M., & McClure, S. M. (2014). Intertemporal choice as discounted value accumulation. PLOS ONE, 9(2), e90138. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090138
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 166. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.1.1
Shamosh, N. A., DeYoung, C. G., Green, A. E., Reis, D. L., Johnson, M. R., Conway, A. R. A., … Gray, J. R. (2008). Individual differences in delay discounting: Relation to intelligence, working memory and anterior prefrontal cortex. Psychological Science, 19(9), 904911. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02175.x
Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 322. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3
Stanovich, K., & West, R. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645665. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00003435
Zhao, W. J., Diederich, A., Trueblood, J. S., & Bhatia, S. (2019). Automatic biases in intertemporal choice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26, 661668.

Keywords

A Dynamic Dual Process Model of Intertemporal Choice

  • Adele Diederich (a1) and Wenjia Joyce Zhao (a2)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed