Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40253720›Full record

ArticleCognition2025

The role of visual attention in opportunity cost neglect and consideration.

Stephanie M Smith, Stephen A Spiller, Ian Krajbich

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Stephanie M SmithAnderson School of Management, UCLA, 110 Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. Electronic address: stephanie.smith@chicagobooth.edu.
Stephen A SpillerAnderson School of Management, UCLA, 110 Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.
Ian KrajbichDepartment of Psychology and Economics, The Ohio State University, 1927 Neil Ave, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Choices necessitate opportunity costs: choosing one option means foregoing another. Despite their critical role in decision making, people often neglect opportunity costs and are less likely to make purchases when reminded of them. Here, we seek to understand whether and how opportunity-cost neglect can be explained by attention, a relationship that has been proposed but not explicitly tested. Participants made eye-tracked, incentivized purchase decisions in two conditions: one with implicit opportunity costs (e.g., "Buy" vs. "Do Not Buy") and one with explicit opportunity costs (e.g., "Buy" vs. "Keep Money"). Across two studies (approximately 30,000 choices), we find lower purchase rates when opportunity costs are explicit. More importantly, we show that the relationship between attention and opportunity cost considerations is two-fold. First, the amount of attention to the outside option is greater when opportunity costs are explicit, which partly accounts for the effect of opportunity cost salience on choice. Second, for some framings, the predictive power of attention to opportunity costs is greater when opportunity costs are explicit. Using the attentional drift-diffusion model, we model the effect of opportunity cost salience on choice via attention. These findings help explain why people are more likely to purchase when explicit opportunity cost reminders are absent.

Indexed as

AttentionChoice BehaviorDecision MakingVisual PerceptionAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultDecision makingDrift-diffusion modelOpportunity costVisual attention

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.