Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41926050›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2026

Toward the cognitive modeling of dynamic decision making.

Will Deng, David Kellen, Jared M Hotaling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Will DengDepartment of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, 61820, USA.
David KellenDepartment of Psychology, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA.
Jared M HotalingDepartment of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, 61820, USA. hotaling@illinois.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7265-1310

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although most research into risky decision making has focused on simple scenarios - where isolated choices are made independent of one another - many important decisions in life play out across sequences of interdependent events and actions. Despite the ubiquity and importance of such decision problems, we know relatively little about how people manage the complexities of dynamic, multistage decisions. Our work combines techniques from two research traditions to investigate how people handle the challenges of dynamic decision making. We use true-and-error models to estimate the distribution and stability of preference profiles, and the presence of errors. In a complementary analysis we use cognitive modeling based on the Decision Field Theory to investigate the psychological processes underlying dynamic decision making. Decision Field Theory provides a unified framework for testing competing hypotheses about how people collect information and plan for the future. Results from both sets of analyses identify distinct groups of individuals. We discuss the behavioral and cognitive factors distinguishing groups from one another, including degree of planning, strategy shifts, biased information sampling, and effort-saving information processing.

Indexed as

CognitionDecision MakingModels, PsychologicalHumansBackward inductionCognitive modelsDecision field theoryDynamic decision making

Identifiers

PMID41926050
PMCPMC13046585

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.