Toward a coherent understanding of risky, intertemporal, and spatial choices: Evidence from eye-tracking and subjective evaluation

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00994

Abstract

Abstract:

This study aims to examine whether risky/intertemporal/spatial choices are coherently reached by choosing between the same units of quantity (Overall Payoff_A vs. Overall Payoff_B) or by comparing values measured using different units of quantity (∆Outcome_A,B vs. ∆Probability_A,B/∆Delay_A,B/∆Space_A,B). Study 1 used an eye-tracking technique to examine whether the outcome dimension and probability/time/space of outcome dimension were directly compared in three choice domains. Our findings show that, from the group-level, decision makers perform a consistent dimension-based search pattern in the three domains, indicating that the decision processes are more dependent on a way of intra-dimensional comparison. From the individual-level, the vast majority of participants were classified as decision makers who using dimension-based strategy. Moreover, the two index we constructed, difference in gaze duration and difference in saccades frequency, could significantly predict the behavioral choice shift. Those results provide supporting evidence for dimension-based strategy in three choice domains. Study 2 used a visual analog scale to examine whether the different units of quantity were treated in an equate-to-differentiate way to reach decisions. Results showed that decisions could be made through an intra-dimensional difference evaluation prescribed by equate-to-differentiate theory. The current paper provides supportive evidence for the comparison rule of “pitting intangible elements against tangible ones” and break a new ground different from the “translating intangible elements into tangible ones” algorithm. Future studies may consider the development of a general model to explain the choices of three different domains.

Key words: eye-tracking technique, visual analog scale, tangible and intangible dimension, intra-dimensional evaluation, comparison between different units of quantity

HUANG Yuanna, JIANG Chengming, LIU Hongzhi, LI Shu. (2023). Toward a coherent understanding of risky, intertemporal, and spatial choices: Evidence from eye-tracking and subjective evaluation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(6), 994-1015.

Figures/Tables 17

References 92

[1]	Ares, G., Mawad, F., Giménez, A., & Maiche, A. (2014). Influence of rational and intuitive thinking styles on food choice: Preliminary evidence from an eye-tracking study with yogurt labels. Food Quality and Preference, 31, 28-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.07.005 doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.07.005 URL
[2]	Basu, S., & Savani, K. (2017). Choosing one at a time? Presenting options simultaneously helps people make more optimal decisions than presenting options sequentially. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 139, 76-91. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.01.004 URL
[3]	Ben-Akiva, M., & Lerman, S. R. (1985). Discrete choice analysis: Theory and applications to travel demand. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[4]	Birnbaum, M.H. (2018). Behavioral models of decision making under risk. In: Raue M., Lermer E., Streicher B. (eds) Psychological Perspectives on Risk and Risk Analysis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92478-6_8 doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92478-6_8
[5]	Böckenholt, U., & Hynan, L. S. (1994). Caveats on a process-tracing measure and a remedy. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7(2), 103-117. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.3960070203 doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.3960070203 URL
[6]	Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75(1), 1-28. pmid: 10815775
[7]	Brandstätter, E., & Gussmack, M. (2013). The cognitive processes underlying risky choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(2), 185-197. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1752 doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1752 URL
[8]	Brandstätter, E., & Körner, C. (2014). Attention in risky choice. Acta Psychologica, 152, 166-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.08.008 doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.08.008 pmid: 25226548
[9]	Brandstätter, E., Gigerenzer, G., & Hertwig, R. (2006). The priority heuristic: Making choices without trade-offs. Psychological Review, 113(2), 409-432. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.409 doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.409.113.2.409 pmid: 16637767
[10]	Bueti, D., & Walsh, V. (2009). The parietal cortex and the representation of time, space, number and other magnitudes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 364(1525), 1831-1840.
[11]	Buzsáki, G., & Llinás, R. (2017). Space and time in the brain. Science, 358(6362), 482-485. doi: 10.1126/science.aan8869 pmid: 29074768
[12]	Carstensen, L. L. (2006). The influence of a sense of time on human development. Science, 312(5782), 1913-1915. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1127488 doi: 10.1126/science.1127488 pmid: 16809530
[13]	Cheng, J., & González-Vallejo, C. (2016). Attribute-wise vs. alternative-wise mechanism in intertemporal choice: Testing the proportional difference, trade-off, and hyperbolic models. Decision, 3(3), 190-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000046 doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000046 URL
[14]	Chen, H. X., & He, G. B. (2011). The effect of construal level on intertemporal choice and risky choice. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 43(4), 442-452. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2011.00442 URL
[15]	Dai, J., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2014). A probabilistic, dynamic, and attribute-wise model of intertemporal choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(4), 1489-1514. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035976 doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035976 URL
[16]	Ding, X., Feng, N., Cheng, X., Liu, H., & Fan, Z. (2015). Are past and future symmetric in mental time line? Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 208-215 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00208 pmid: 25767457
[17]	Eikmeier, V., Schröter, H., Maienborn, C., Alex-Ruf, S., & Ulrich, R. (2013). Dimensional overlap between time and space. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(6), 1120-1125. doi: 10.3758/s13423-013-0431-2 URL
[18]	Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 URL
[19]	Fisher, I. (1930). The theory of interest as determined by impatience to spend income and opportunity to invest it. New York: Macmillan.
[20]	Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O'Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 351-401. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0879-3 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0879-3 URL
[21]	Gigerenzer, G., and Goldstein, D.G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review. 103, 650-669. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.103.4.650 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.103.4.650 pmid: 8888650
[22]	Glaholt, M. G., & Reingold, E. M. (2011). Eye movement monitoring as a process tracing methodology in decision making research. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 4(2), 125-146. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020692 doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020692 URL
[23]	Glöckner, A., & Herbold, A. K. (2011). An eye-tracking study on information processing in risky decisions: Evidence for compensatory strategies based on automatic processes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24(1), 71-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.684 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.684 URL
[24]	Green, L., Fristoe, N., & Myerson, J. (1994). Temporal discounting and preference reversals in choice between delayed outcomes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1(3), 383-389. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03213979 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03213979 URL
[25]	Green, L., & Myerson, J. (2004). A discounting framework for choice with delayed and probabilistic rewards. Psychological Bulletin, 130(5), 769-792. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.769 doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.769 pmid: 15367080
[26]	Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408-420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360 doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360 URL
[27]	He, T. Y., Ding, Y., Li, H. K., Cheng, X. R., Fam, Z., & Ding, X. F. (2020). The multidimensional spatial representation of time: Dissociations on its ontogenetic origin and activation mechanism. Advances in Psychological Science, 28(6), 935-944. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.00935 URL
[28]	Hertwig, R., & Ortmann, A. (2001). Experimental practices in economics: A methodological challenge for psychologists? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(3), 383-403. pmid: 11682798
[29]	Horn, S., & Freund, A. M. (2022). Adult age differences in monetary decisions with real and hypothetical reward. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 35(2), e2253.
[30]	Jiang, C. M., Liu, H. Z., Cai, X. H., & Li, S. (2016). A process test of priority models of intertemporal choice. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 48(1), 59-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2016.00059 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2016.00059 URL
[31]	Jiang, D., & He, G. B. (2017). Decision making: Based on the perspective of psychological distance. Advances in Psychological Science, 25(11), 1992-2001. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2017.01992 URL
[32]	Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
[33]	Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185 doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185 URL
[34]	Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value trade-offs. Wiley, New York.
[35]	Kuang, Y., Huang, Y. N., & Li, S. (2022). A framing effect of intertemporal and spatial choice. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218221113519. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218221113519
[36]	Kundel, H. L., Nodine, C. F., Conant, E. F., & Weinstein, S. P. (2007). Holistic component of image perception in mammogram interpretation: Gaze-tracking study. Radiology, 242(2), 396-402. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2422051997 pmid: 17255410
[37]	Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive Science, 4(2), 195-208. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0402_4 URL
[38]	Lee., L & Anderson, R. (2009). A comparison of compensatory and noncompensatory decision making strategies in IT project portfolio management. In International Research Workshop on IT Project Management 2009 (p.9). http://aisel.aisnet.org/irwitpm2009/9
[39]	Li, S. (2016). An equate-to-differentiate way of decision-making. Shanghai: East China Normal University Press.
[40]	Li, S. (2005). Choice reversals across certainty, uncertainty and risk: The equate-to-differentiate interpretation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 37(4), 427-433.
[41]	Li, S. (2004). A behavioral choice model when computational ability matters. Applied Intelligence, 20(2), 147-163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:APIN.0000013337.01711.c7 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:APIN.0000013337.01711.c7 URL
[42]	Li, S. (1998). Can the conditions governing the framing effect be determined? Journal of Economic Psychology, 19(1), 133-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(97)00039-1 doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(97)00039-1 URL
[43]	Li, S. (1994). Equate-to-differentiate theory: A coherent bi-choice model across certainty, uncertainty and risk. University of New South Wales.
[44]	Liu, H. Z., Jiang, C. M., Rao, L. L., & Li, S. (2015). Discounting or priority: Which rule dominates the intertemporal choice process? Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47(4), 522-532. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00522 doi: https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00522 URL
[45]	Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (1992). Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(2), 573-597. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118482 doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2118482 URL
[46]	May, J., & Thrift, N. (Eds.). (2001). Timespace: Geographies of temporality. London: Routledge
[47]	Mazur, J. E. (1987). An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In M. L. Commons, J. E. Mazur, J. A. Nevin, & H. Rachlin (Eds.), Quantitative analysis of behavior: The effect of delay and of intervening events on reinforcement value (pp. 55-73). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[48]	McGraw, A. P., Larsen, J. T., Kahneman, D., & Schkade, D. (2010). Comparing gains and losses. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1438-1445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610381504 doi: 10.1177/0956797610381504 pmid: 20739673
[49]	Norman, E., & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M. (2010). Take a quick click at that! Mouselab and eye-tracking as tools to measure intuition. Foundations for Ttracing Intuition: Challenges and Methods, 24-44.
[50]	Olschewski, S., & Rieskamp, J. (2020). Distinguishing three effects of time pressure on risk taking: Choice consistency, risk preference, and strategy selection. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2228 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2228
[51]	Pachur, T., Hertwig, R., Gigerenzer, G., & Brandstätter, E. (2013). Testing process predictions of models of risky choice: A quantitative model comparison approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 646. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00646 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00646 pmid: 24151472
[52]	Payne, J. W. (1994). Thinking aloud: Insights into information processing. Psychological Science. 5(5), 241-248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00620.x doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00620.x
[53]	Payne, J. W., & Braunstein, M. L. (1978). Risky choice: An examination of information acquisition behavior. Memory & Cognition, 6(5), 554-561. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03198244 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03198244 URL
[54]	Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R., & Johnson, E.J. (1993). The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge University Press: New York
[55]	Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1988). Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 534-552. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.14.3.534 doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.14.3.534 URL
[56]	Pellegrini, P. A., & Fotheringham, A. S. (2002). Modelling spatial choice: A review and synthesis in a migration context. Progress in Human Geography, 26(4), 487-510. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132502ph382ra doi: https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132502ph382ra URL
[57]	Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 pmid: 14516251
[58]	Prelec, D., & Loewenstein, G. (1991). Decision making over time and under uncertainty: A common approach. Management Science, 37(7), 770-786. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.37.7.770 doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.37.7.770 URL
[59]	Rachlin, H. (2006). Notes on discounting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 85, 425-435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2006.85-05 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2006.85-05 pmid: 16776060
[60]	Rachlin, H., Brown, J., & Cross, D. (2000). Discounting in judgments of delay and probability. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(2), 145-159. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0771 URL
[61]	Rao, L. L., Li, S., Jiang, T., & Zhou, Y. (2012). Is payoff necessarily weighted by probability when making a risky choice? Evidence from functional connectivity analysis. PLoS One, 7(7), e41048. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041048 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041048 URL
[62]	Rao, L. L., Liu, X. N., Li, Q., Zhou, Y., Liang, Z. Y., Sun, H. Y., … Li, S. (2013). Toward a mental arithmetic process in risky choices. Brain and Cognition, 83(3), 307-314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2013.09.009 doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2013.09.009 pmid: 24128658
[63]	Ratcliff, R., Smith, P. L., Brown, S. D., & McKoon, G. (2016). Diffusion decision model: Current issues and history. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(4), 260-281. doi: S1364-6613(16)00025-5 pmid: 26952739
[64]	Read, D. (2004). Intertemporal choice. Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making, 424-443.
[65]	Reeck, C., Wall, D., & Johnson, E. J. (2017). Search predicts and changes patience in intertemporal choice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(45), 11890-11895. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707040114 doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707040114 URL
[66]	Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall.
[67]	Sarukkai, S. (2009). Phenomenology of untouchability. Economic and Political Weekly, 44(37), 39-48.
[68]	Savage, L. J. (1951) The theory of statistical decision. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 46(253), 55-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1951.10500768 doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1951.10500768 URL
[69]	Savage, L. J. (1954). The foundations of statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Dover.
[70]	Schoemann, A. M., Boulton, A. J., & Short, S. D. (2017). Determining power and sample size for simple and complex mediation models. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 379-386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550617715068 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550617715068 URL
[71]	Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Johnson, J. G., Böckenholt, U., et al. (2017). Process-tracing methods in decision making: On growing up in the 70s. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(5), 442-450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721417708229 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721417708229 URL
[72]	Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Kühberger, A., & Ranyard, R. (2011). The role of process data in the development and testing of process models of judgment and decision making. Judgment and Decision making, 6(8), 733-739. doi: 10.1017/S1930297500004162 URL
[73]	Scholten, M., & Read, D. (2014). Prospect theory and the “forgotten” fourfold pattern of risk preferences. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 48(1), 67-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11166-014-9183-2 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11166-014-9183-2 URL
[74]	Scholten, M., Read, D., & Sanborn, A. (2014). Weighing outcomes by time or against time? Evaluation rules in intertemporal choice. Cognitive Science, 38(3), 399-438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12104 doi: 10.1111/cogs.12104 pmid: 24404941
[75]	Scholten, M., & Read, D. (2010). The psychology of intertemporal tradeoffs. Psychological Review, 117, 925-944. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019619 doi: 10.1037/a0019619 pmid: 20658858
[76]	Smythe, E. J., & Goldstone, S. (1957). The time sense: A normative, genetic study of the development of time perception. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 7(1), 49-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/PMS.7.49-59 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/PMS.7.49-59 URL
[77]	Sheppard, E. S. (1980). The ideology of spatial choice. Papers of the Regional Science Association, 45(1), 197-213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf01934662 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf01934662 URL
[78]	Su, Y., Rao, L. L., Sun, H. Y., Du, X. L., Li, X., & Li, S. (2013). Is making a risky choice based on a weighting and adding process? An eye-tracking investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39( 6), 1765-1780. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032861 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032861 URL
[79]	Stevens, J. R. (2016). Intertemporal similarity: Discounting as a last resort. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29(1), 12-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1870 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1870 URL
[80]	Takagaki, K., & Krug, K. (2020). The effects of reward and social context on visual processing for perceptual decision-making. Current Opinion in Physiology, 16, 109-117. doi: 10.1016/j.cophys.2020.08.006 URL
[81]	Tversky, A. (1969). Intransitivity of preferences. Psychological Review, 76(1), 31-48. doi: 10.1037/h0026750 URL
[82]	Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79, 281-299. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032955 doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032955 URL
[83]	Ulrich, R., & Maienborn, C. (2010). Left-right coding of past and future in language: The mental timeline during sentence processing. Cognition, 117(2), 126-138. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.08.001 pmid: 20850112
[84]	Weger, U. W., & Pratt, J. (2008). Time flies like an arrow: Space-time compatibility effects suggest the use of a mental timeline. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(2), 426-430. doi: 10.3758/PBR.15.2.426 URL
[85]	Wiener, J. M., Hölscher, C., Büchner, S., & Konieczny, L. (2012). Gaze behaviour during space perception and spatial decision making. Psychological Research, 76(6), 713-729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0397-5 doi: 10.1007/s00426-011-0397-5 pmid: 22139023
[86]	Viard, A., Doeller, C. F., Hartley, T., Bird, C. M., & Burgess, N. (2011). Anterior hippocampus and goal-directed spatial decision making. Journal of Neuroscience, 31(12), 4613-4621. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4640-10.2011 doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4640-10.2011 pmid: 21430161
[87]	von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (2nd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press https://archive.org/details/theoryofgamesand030098mbp
[88]	von Sobbe, L., Scheifele, E., Maienborn, C., & Ulrich, R. (2019). The space-time congruency effect: A meta-analysis. Cognitive Science, 43(1), e12709.
[89]	Xue, Y., & Brown, D. E. (2003). A decision model for spatial site selection by criminals: A foundation for law enforcement decision support. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), 33(1), 78-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSMCC.2003.809867 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSMCC.2003.809867 URL
[90]	Zhang, Y. Y., Zhou, L., You, X. Q., Li, S., & Liang, Z. Y. (2018). Is intertemporal decision-making based on a temporal discounting process? Evidence from double-dissociation paradigm. Scientia Sinica (Vitae), 48(5), 592-608.
[91]	Zhou, L., Li, A. M., Zhang, L., Li, S., & Liang, Z. Y. (2019). Similarity in processes of risky choice and intertemporal choice: The case of certainty effect and immediacy effect. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(3), 337-352. http://dx.doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00337 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00337 URL
[92]	Zhou, L., Zhang, Y. Y., Li, S., & Liang, Z, Y. (2018). New paradigms for the old question: Challenge the expectation rule held by risky decision-making theories. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 12(e17), 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/prp.2018.4 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/prp.2018.4

		Risky choice				Intertemporal choice				Spatial choice
		Choice preference		Visual analogue scale		Choice preference		Visual analogue scale		Choice preference		Visual analogue scale
Computational difficulty	Parameter	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Low	First pairs	4.66 (B)	1.35	3.22	1.69	4.94 (B)	1.58	2.60	2.15	3.13 (A)	1.83	4.05	2.13
Low	Second pairs	1.67 (C)	1.2	5.23	2.32	1.57 (C)	1.18	5.32	2.26	1.34 (C)	1.02	5.67	2.08
High	First pairs	4.85 (B)	1.37	3.09	1.55	5.41 (B)	1.12	2.36	2.17	3.01 (A)	1.95	4.30	2.21
High	Second pairs	1.96 (C)	1.51	5.25	2.06	2.12 (C)	1.66	4.88	2.28	1.50 (C)	1.28	5.52	2.27

		Risky choice				Intertemporal choice				Spatial choice
		Choice preference		Visual analogue scale		Choice preference		Visual analogue scale		Choice preference		Visual analogue scale
Computational difficulty	Parameter	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Low	First pairs	4.66 (B)	1.35	3.22	1.69	4.94 (B)	1.58	2.60	2.15	3.13 (A)	1.83	4.05	2.13
Low	Second pairs	1.67 (C)	1.2	5.23	2.32	1.57 (C)	1.18	5.32	2.26	1.34 (C)	1.02	5.67	2.08
High	First pairs	4.85 (B)	1.37	3.09	1.55	5.41 (B)	1.12	2.36	2.17	3.01 (A)	1.95	4.30	2.21
High	Second pairs	1.96 (C)	1.51	5.25	2.06	2.12 (C)	1.66	4.88	2.28	1.50 (C)	1.28	5.52	2.27

		Computatial difficulty (Low)	Computatial difficulty (High)
Risky choice	First pair	A: (￥6, 000, 45%) B:(￥3, 000, 90%)	A: (￥9, 500, 65%) B: (￥6, 500, 95%)
	Second pair	C: (￥6, 000, 0.1%) D: (￥3, 000, 0.2%)	C: (￥9, 500, 0.65%) D: (￥6, 500, 0.85%)
	Third pair	C: (￥6, 000, 36%) D: (￥3, 000, 72%)	C: (￥9, 500, 58%) D: (￥6, 500, 85%)
Intertemporal choie	First pair	A: (￥6, 000, 20 years) B: (￥3, 000, 10 years)	A: (￥9, 500, 30 years) B: (￥6, 500, 10 years)
	Second pair	C: (￥6, 000, 20 days) D: (￥3, 000, 10 days)	C: (￥9, 500, 30 days) D: (￥6, 500, 10 days)
	Third pair	C: (￥6, 000, 16 years) D: (￥3, 000, 8 years)	C: (￥9, 500, 27 years) D: (￥6, 500, 9 years)
Spatial choice	First pair	A: (￥6, 000, 1, 800 km) B: (￥3, 000, 900 km)	A: (￥9, 500, 600 km) B: (￥6, 500, 200 km)
	Second pair	C: (￥6, 000, 4 km) D: (￥3, 000, 2 km)	C: (￥9, 500, 3 km) D: (￥6, 500, 1 km)
	Third pair	C: (￥6, 000, 1, 440 km) D: (￥3, 000, 720 km)	C: (￥9, 500, 540 km) D: (￥6, 500, 180 km)

		Computatial difficulty (Low)	Computatial difficulty (High)
Risky choice	First pair	A: (￥6, 000, 45%) B:(￥3, 000, 90%)	A: (￥9, 500, 65%) B: (￥6, 500, 95%)
	Second pair	C: (￥6, 000, 0.1%) D: (￥3, 000, 0.2%)	C: (￥9, 500, 0.65%) D: (￥6, 500, 0.85%)
	Third pair	C: (￥6, 000, 36%) D: (￥3, 000, 72%)	C: (￥9, 500, 58%) D: (￥6, 500, 85%)
Intertemporal choie	First pair	A: (￥6, 000, 20 years) B: (￥3, 000, 10 years)	A: (￥9, 500, 30 years) B: (￥6, 500, 10 years)
	Second pair	C: (￥6, 000, 20 days) D: (￥3, 000, 10 days)	C: (￥9, 500, 30 days) D: (￥6, 500, 10 days)
	Third pair	C: (￥6, 000, 16 years) D: (￥3, 000, 8 years)	C: (￥9, 500, 27 years) D: (￥6, 500, 9 years)
Spatial choice	First pair	A: (￥6, 000, 1, 800 km) B: (￥3, 000, 900 km)	A: (￥9, 500, 600 km) B: (￥6, 500, 200 km)
	Second pair	C: (￥6, 000, 4 km) D: (￥3, 000, 2 km)	C: (￥9, 500, 3 km) D: (￥6, 500, 1 km)
	Third pair	C: (￥6, 000, 1, 440 km) D: (￥3, 000, 720 km)	C: (￥9, 500, 540 km) D: (￥6, 500, 180 km)