ArticleScientific reports2024
Attentional dynamics of evidence accumulation explain why more numerate people make better decisions under risk.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mindfulness training enhances face working memory: evidence from the drift-diffusion model.NPJ science of learning · 2025Article
- Experience and advice consequences shape information sharing strategies.Communications psychology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In decisions under risk, more numerate people are typically more likely to choose the option with the highest expected value (EV) than less numerate ones. Prior research indicates that this finding cannot be explained by differences in the reliance on explicit EV calculation. The current work uses the attentional Drift Diffusion Model as a unified computational framework to formalize three candidate mechanisms of pre-decisional information search and processing-namely, attention allocation, amount of deliberation, and distorted processing of value-which may differ between more and less numerate people and explain differences in decision quality. Computational modeling of an eye-tracking experiment on risky choice demonstrates that numeracy is linked to how people allocate their attention across the options, how much evidence they require before committing to a choice, and also how strongly they distort currently non-attended information during preference formation. Together, especially the latter two mechanisms largely mediate the effect of numeracy on decision quality. Overall, the current work disentangles and quantifies latent aspects of the dynamics of preference formation, explicates how their interplay may give rise to manifest differences in decision quality, and thereby provides a fully formalized, mechanistic explanation for the link between numeracy and decision quality in risky choice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.