Visual judgments of length in the economics laboratory: Are there brains in stochastic choice?

Duffy, Sean and Gussman, Steven and Smith, John (2021): Visual judgments of length in the economics laboratory: Are there brains in stochastic choice?

Abstract

We design an induced value choice experiment where the objects are valued according to only a single attribute with a continuous measure. Subjects have an imperfect perception of the choice objects but can reduce their imperfect perception with cognitive effort. Subjects are given a choice set involving several lines of various lengths and are told to select one of them. They strive to select the longest line because they are paid an amount that is increasing in the length of their selection. This "idealized" choice experiment produces a dataset that is uniquely suited to study apparently random choice. We also manipulate the available cognitive resources of the subjects by imposing either a high or low cognitive load. We find that both choices and the allocation of effort are affected by the material incentives in the choice problem and the available cognitive resources. We find evidence that optimal choices have shorter deliberation times than suboptimal choices, which is consistent with previous theoretical predictions. The distribution of errors can have significant implications for the specification of stochastic choice models. Specifications where errors have a Gumbel distribution appear to provide a better fit than those with a normal distribution. Despite that the cognitive load manipulation affects both choice and search, it is notable that neither the Gumbel distribution results nor the relationship between optimal choice and deliberation time appear to be affected by the available cognitive resources. This perhaps suggests that these results are general and persistent features of choice.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: cognitive load, choice, choice overload, judgment, memory, search
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments > C91 - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

References

Achtziger, A. Alós-Ferrer, C., & Ritschel, A. (2020). Cognitive load in economic decisions. Working paper, University of Zurich.

Agranov, M., & Ortoleva, P. (2017). Stochastic choice and preferences for randomization. Journal of Political Economy, 125(1), 40--68.

Aguiar, V.H., Boccardi, M. J., & Dean, M. (2016). Satisficing and stochastic choice. Journal of Economic Theory, 166, 445--482.

Ahumada, A., & Ulku, L. (2018). Luce rule with limited consideration. Mathematical Social Sciences, 93, 52--56.

Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19(6), 716--723.

Allen, R.J., Baddeley, A.D., & Hitch, G.J. (2006). Is the binding of visual features in working memory resource-demanding? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(2), 298--313.

Allred, S., Crawford, L.E., Duffy, S., & Smith, J. (2016). Working memory and spatial judgments: Cognitive load increases the central tendency bias. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 23(6), 1825--1831.

Allred, S., Duffy, S., & Smith, J. (2016). Cognitive Load and Strategic Sophistication. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 125, 162--178.

Alós-Ferrer, C., Fehr, E., & Netzer, N. (2021). Time will tell: recovering preferences when choices are noisy. Journal of Political Economy, forthcoming.

Alós-Ferrer, C., & Garagnani, M. (2020). Strength of preference and decision making under risk. Working paper, University of Zurich.

Alós-Ferrer, C., & Garagnani, M. (2021). Choice consistency and strength of preference. Economics Letters, 198, 109672

Alós-Ferrer, C., Granić, Đ.G., Kern, J., & Wagner, A.K. (2016). Preference reversals: Time and again. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 52(1), 65--97.

Apesteguia, J., & Ballester, M.A. (2018). Monotone stochastic choice models: The case of risk and time preferences. Journal of Political Economy, 126(1), 74--106.

Apesteguia, J., Ballester, M.A., & Lu, J. (2017). Single-Crossing Random Utility Models. Econometrica, 85(2), 661--674.

Argenziano, R., & Gilboa, I. (2017). Psychophysical foundations of the Cobb--Douglas utility function. Economics Letters, 157, 21--23.

Armel, K.C., Beaumel, A., & Rangel, A. (2008). Biasing simple choices by manipulating relative visual attention. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(5), 396--403.

Armel, K.C., & Rangel, A. (2008). The Impact of Computation Time and Experience on Decision Values. American Economic Review, 98(2), 163--168.

Ballinger, T.P., & Wilcox, N.T. (1997). Decisions, Error and Heterogeneity. Economic Journal, 107(443), 1090--1105.

Becker, G.M., DeGroot, M.H., & Marschak, J. (1963). Stochastic models of choice behavior. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 8(1), 41--55.

Benjamin, D.J., Brown, S.A., & Shapiro, J.M. (2013). Who is `behavioral'? Cognitive ability and anomalous preferences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(6), 1231--1255.

Bhat, C.R. (1995). A heteroscedastic extreme value model of intercity travel mode choice. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 29(6), 471--483.

Bhui, R. (2019a). A statistical test for the optimality of deliberative time allocation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 26(3), 855--867.

Bhui, R. (2019b). Testing Optimal Timing in Value-Linked Decision Making. Computational Brain and Behavior, 2(2), 85--94.

Birnbaum, M.H. (2011). Testing mixture models of transitive preference: Comment on Regenwetter, Dana, and Davis-Stober (2011). Psychological Review, 118(4), 675--683.

Birnbaum, M.H., & Schmidt, U. (2008). An experimental investigation of violations of transitivity in choice under uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 37(1), 77--91.

Birnbaum, M.H., & Schmidt, U. (2010). Testing transitivity in choice under risk. Theory and Decision, 69(4), 599--614.

Blavatskyy, P.R. (2008). Stochastic utility theorem. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 44, 1049--1056.

Blavatskyy, P.R. (2011). Probabilistic risk aversion with an arbitrary outcome set. Economics Letters, 112(1), 34--37.

Bradley, R.A., & Terry, M.E. (1952). Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. The method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 39(3-4), 324--345.

Buckert, M., Oechssler, J., & Schwieren, C. (2017). Imitation under stress. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 139, 252--266.

Butler, D.J. (2000). Do non-expected utility choice patterns spring from hazy preferences? An experimental study of choice `errors'. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 41(3), 277--297.

Butler, D., & Loomes, G. (1988). Decision difficulty and imprecise preferences. Acta Psychologica, 68(1-3), 183--196.

Butler, D.J., & Loomes, G.C. (2007). Imprecision as an account of the preference reversal phenomenon. American Economic Review, 97(1), 277--297.

Caplin, A. (2012). Choice Sets as Percepts. In Neuroscience of Preference and Choice: Cognitive and Neural Mechanisms, Dolan, R., & Sharot, T. (Eds.), Academic Press, Waltham MA, 295--304.

Caplin, A. (2016). Measuring and modeling attention. Annual Review of Economics, 8, 379--403.

Caplin, A., Csaba, D., Leahy, J., & Nov, O. (2020). Rational Inattention, Competitive Supply, and Psychometrics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 135(3), 1681--1724.

Caplin, A., & Dean, M. (2015). Revealed preference, rational inattention, and costly information acquisition. American Economic Review, 105(7), 2183--2203.

Caplin, A., Dean, M., & Leahy, J. (2019). Rational Inattention, Optimal Consideration Sets, and Stochastic Choice. Review of Economic Studies, 86(3), 1061--1094.

Caplin, A., Dean, M., & Martin, D. (2011). Search and satisficing. American Economic Review, 101(7), 2899--2922.

Caplin, A., & Martin, D. (2015). A testable theory of imperfect perception. Economic Journal, 125(582), 184--202.

Cappelletti, D., Güth, W., & Ploner, M. (2011). Being of two minds: Ultimatum offers under cognitive constraints. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(6), 940--950.

Carpenter, J., Graham, M., & Wolf, J. (2013). Cognitive Ability and Strategic Sophistication. Games and Economic Behavior, 80(1), 115--130.

Carrasco, M., & McElree, B. (2001). Covert attention accelerates the rate of visual information processing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(9), 5363--5367.

Carrasco, M., Williams, P.E., & Yeshurun, Y. (2002). Covert attention increases spatial resolution with or without masks: Support for signal enhancement. Journal of Vision, 2(6), 467--479.

Cattaneo, M.D., Ma, X., Masatlioglu, Y., & Suleymanov, E. (2020). A Random Attention Model. Journal of Political Economy, 128(7), 2796--2836.

Cattell, J.M. (1902). The time of perception as a measure of differences in intensity. Philosophische Studien, 19, 63--68.

Cerreia-Vioglio, S., Dillenberger, D., Ortoleva, P., & Riella, G. (2019). Deliberately stochastic. American Economic Review, 109(7), 2425--2445.

Charness, G., Gneezy, U., & Halladay, B. (2016). Experimental methods: Pay one or pay all. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 131, 141--150.

Chen, F., & Fischbacher, U. (2016). Response time and click position: Cheap indicators of preferences. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 2(2), 109--126.

Cocchi, L., Toepel, U., De Lucia, M., Martuzzi, R., Wood, S.J., Carter, O., & Murray, M.M. (2011). Working memory load improves early stages of independent visual processing. Neuropsychologia, 49(1), 92--102.

Conte, A., & Hey, J.D. (2019). Rehabilitating the Random Utility Model. A comment on Apesteguia and Ballester (2018). Working paper, Univerity of York.

Conte, A., Hey, J.D., & Moffatt, P.G. (2011). Mixture models of choice under risk. Journal of Econometrics, 162(1), 79--88.

Cox, J.C., Sadiraj, V., & Schmidt, U. (2015). Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk. Experimental Economics, 18(2), 215--250.

Cubitt, R.P., Navarro-Martinez, D., & Starmer, C. (2015). On preference imprecision. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 50(1), 1--34.

Dashiell, J.F. (1937). Affective value-distances as a determinant of esthetic judgment-times. American Journal of Psychology, 50(1/4), 57--67.

Dean, M., & Neligh, N. (2017). Experimental Tests of Rational Inattention. Working Paper, Columbia University.

Debreu, G. (1958). Stochastic choice and cardinal utility. Econometrica, 26(3), 440--444.

Deck, C., & Jahedi, S. (2015). The effect of cognitive load on economic decision making: A survey and new experiments. European Economic Review, 78, 97--119.

Deck, C., Jahedi, S., & Sheremeta, R. (2021). On the Consistency of Cognitive Load. European Economic Review, forthcoming.

Drichoutis, A.C., & Nayga, R. (2020). Economic rationality under cognitive load. Economic Journal, 130(632), 2382--2409.

Duffy, S., Naddeo, J.J., Owens, D., & Smith, J. (2021). Cognitive load and mixed strategies: On brains and minimax. Working paper, Rutgers University-Camden.

Duffy, S., & Smith, J. (2014). Cognitive Load in the Multi-player Prisoner's Dilemma Game: Are There Brains in Games? Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 51, 47--56.

Duffy, S., & Smith, J. (2020). An economist and a psychologist form a line: What can imperfect perception of length tell us about stochastic choice? Working paper, Rutgers University-Camden.

Dutilh, G., & Rieskamp, J. (2016). Comparing perceptual and preferential decision making. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 23(3), 723--737.

Echenique, F., Saito, K., & Tserenjigmid, G. (2018). The perception-adjusted Luce model. Mathematical Social Sciences, 93, 67--76.

Falmagne, J.C. (1978). A representation theorem for finite random scale systems. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 18(1), 52--72.

Fechner, G.T. (1860). Elemente der Psychophysik. (Elements of psychophysics, translated 1966. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.)

Franco-Watkins, A.M., Rickard, T.C., & Pashler, H. (2010). Taxing executive processes does not necessarily increase impulsive decision making. Experimental Psychology, 57, 193--201.

Fudenberg, D., Iijima, R., & Strzalecki, T. (2015). Stochastic choice and revealed perturbed utility. Econometrica, 83(6), 2371--2409.

Fudenberg, D., Strack, P., & Strzalecki, T. (2018). Speed, accuracy, and the optimal timing of choices. American Economic Review, 108(12), 3651--3684.

Gabaix, X., Laibson, D., Moloche, G., & Weinberg, S. (2006). Costly information acquisition: Experimental analysis of a boundedly rational model. American Economic Review, 96(4), 1043--1068.

Geng, S. (2016). Decision time, consideration time, and status quo bias. Economic Inquiry, 54(1), 433--449.

Gilbert, D.T., Pelham, B.W., & Krull, D.S. (1988). On Cognitive Busyness: When Person Perceivers Meet Persons Perceived. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 733--740.

Gul, F., Natenzon, P., & Pesendorfer, W. (2014). Random choice as behavioral optimization. Econometrica, 82(5), 1873--1912.

Gul, F., & Pesendorfer, W. (2006). Random expected utility. Econometrica, 74(1), 121--146.

Hauge, K.E., Brekke, K.A., Johansson, L.O., Johansson-Stenman, O., & Svedsäter, H. (2016). Keeping others in our mind or in our heart? Distribution games under cognitive load. Experimental Economics, 19(3), 562--576.

Henmon, V.A.C. (1911). The relation of the time of a judgment to its accuracy. Psychological Review, 18(3), 186--201.

Hey, J.D. (1995). Experimental investigations of errors in decision making under risk. European Economic Review, 39(3-4), 633--640.

Horan, S., Manzini, P., & Mariotti, M. (2019). When Is Coarseness Not a Curse? Comparative Statics of the Coarse Random Utility Model. Working paper, University of Sussex.

Kellogg, W.N. (1931). The time of judgment in psychometric measures. American Journal of Psychology, 43(1), 65--86.

Khaw, M.W., Li, Z., & Woodford, M. (2017). Risk aversion as a perceptual bias. Working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research.

Koida, N. (2018). Anticipated stochastic choice. Economic Theory, 65(3), 545--574.

Kovach, M., & Tserenjigmid, G. (2021). The focal Luce model. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, forthcoming.

Krajbich, I., Armel, C., & Rangel, A. (2010). Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice. Nature Neuroscience, 13(10), 1292--1298.

Krajbich, I., & Rangel, A. (2011). Multialternative drift-diffusion model predicts the relationship between visual fixations and choice in value-based decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(33), 13852--13857.

Lee, L., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2009). In search of homo economicus: Cognitive noise and the role of emotion in preference consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(2), 173--187.

Lévy-Garboua, L., Maafi, H., Masclet, D., & Terracol, A. (2012). Risk aversion and framing effects. Experimental Economics, 15(1), 128--144.

Liu, T., Abrams, J., & Carrasco, M. (2009). Voluntary attention enhances contrast appearance. Psychological Science, 20(3), 354--362.

Lleras, J.S., Masatlioglu, Y., Nakajima, D., & Ozbay, E.Y. (2017). When more is less: Limited consideration. Journal of Economic Theory, 170, 70--85.

Loomes, G., & Pogrebna, G. (2014). Measuring individual risk attitudes when preferences are imprecise. Economic Journal, 124(576), 569--593.

Loomes, G., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1989). Preference reversal: information-processing effect or rational non-transitive choice? Economic Journal, 99(395), 140--151.

Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1995). Incorporating a stochastic element into decision theories. European Economic Review, 39(3-4), 641--648.

Loomis, J., Peterson, G., Champ, P., Brown, T., & Lucero, B. (1998). Paired comparison estimates of willingness to accept versus contingent valuation estimates of willingness to pay. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 35(4), 501--515.

Lu, J. (2016). Random choice and private information. Econometrica, 84(6), 1983--2027.

Luce, R.D. (1959a). Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. Wiley: New York.

Luce, R.D. (1959b). On the possible psychophysical laws. Psychological Review, 66(2), 81--95.

Luce, R.D. (1994). Thurstone and Sensory Scaling: Then and Now. Psychological Review, 101(2), 271--277.

Luce, R.D. (2005). Measurement analogies: Comparisons of behavioral and physical measures. Psychometrika, 70(2), 227--251.

Machina, M.J. (1985). Stochastic choice functions generated from deterministic preferences over lotteries. Economic Journal, 95(379), 575--594.

Manzini, P., & Mariotti, M. (2014). Stochastic choice and consideration sets. Econometrica, 82(3), 1153--1176.

Masatlioglu, Y., Nakajima, D., & Ozbay, E.Y. (2012). Revealed Attention. American Economic Review, 102(5), 2183--2205.

Mas-Colell, A., Whinston, M.D., & Green, J.R. (1995). Microeconomic Theory, New York: Oxford University Press.

Matějka, F., & McKay, A. (2015). Rational inattention to discrete choices: A new foundation for the multinomial logit model. American Economic Review, 105(1), 272--298.

McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. In Frontiers in Econometrics, Zarembka, P. (Ed.), New York, Academic Press, 105--142.

McFadden, D. (1976). Quantal choice analaysis: A survey. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, 5(4), 363--390.

McFadden, D. (1981). Econometric Models of Probabilistic Choice. In Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications, Manski, C., & McFadden, D. (Eds.), Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 198--272.

McFadden, D. (2001). Economic choices. American Economic Review, 91(3), 351--378.

Milinski, M., & Wedekind, C. (1998). Working memory constrains human cooperation in the Prisoner's Dilemma. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95(23), 13755--13758.

Moffatt, P.G. (2005). Stochastic choice and the allocation of cognitive effort. Experimental Economics, 8(4), 369--388.

Mosteller, F., & Nogee, P. (1951). An experimental measurement of utility. Journal of Political Economy, 59(5), 371--404.

Morey, C.C., & Bieler, M. (2013). Visual short-term memory always requires general attention. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20(1), 163--170.

Morey, C.C., & Cowan, N. (2004). When visual and verbal memories compete: Evidence of cross-domain limits in working memory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11(2), 296--301.

Münsterberg, H. (1894). Studies from the Harvard Psychological Laboratory: (I). Psychological Review, 1(1), 34--60.

Natenzon, P. (2019). Random choice and learning. Journal of Political Economy, 127(1), 419--457.

Navarro-Martinez, D., Loomes, G., Isoni, A., Butler, D., & Alaoui, L. (2018). Boundedly rational expected utility theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 57(3), 199--223.

Olschewski, S., Newell, B., & Scheibehenne, B. (2019). How Basic Cognition Influences Experience-Based Economic Valuation. Working paper University of Basel.

Olschewski, S., Rieskamp, J., & Scheibehenne, B. (2018). Taxing cognitive capacities reduces choice consistency rather than preference: A model-based test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(4), 462--484.

Oud, B., Krajbich, I., Miller, K., Cheong, J.H., Botvinick, M., & Fehr, E. (2016). Irrational time allocation in decision-making. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 283(1822), 20151439.

Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R., & Johnson, E.J. (1993). The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge University Press.

Payne, J.W., Braunstein, M.L., & Carroll, J.S. (1978). Exploring predecisional behavior: An alternative approach to decision research. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22(1), 17--44.

Polanía, R., Krajbich, I., Grueschow, M., & Ruff, C.C. (2014). Neural oscillations and synchronization differentially support evidence accumulation in perceptual and value-based decision making. Neuron, 82(3), 709--720.

Psychology Software Tools, Inc. [E-Prime 2.0] (2012). Retrieved from http://www.pstnet.com.

Regenwetter, M., Dana, J., & Davis-Stober, C.P. (2011). Transitivity of preferences. Psychological Review, 118(1), 42--56.

Regenwetter, M., Dana, J., Davis-Stober, C.P., & Guo, Y. (2011). Parsimonious testing of transitive or intransitive preferences: Reply to Birnbaum (2011). Psychological Review, 118(4), 684--688.

Regenwetter, M., & Davis-Stober, C.P. (2012). Behavioral variability of choices versus structural inconsistency of preferences. Psychological Review, 119(2), 408--416.

Reutskaja, E., Nagel, R., Camerer, C.F., & Rangel, A. (2011). Search dynamics in consumer choice under time pressure: An eye-tracking study. American Economic Review, 101(2), 900--926.

Rieskamp, J. (2008). The probabilistic nature of preferential choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34 (6), 1446--1465.

Roch, S.G., Lane, J.A.S., Samuelson, C.D., Allison, S.T., & Dent, J.L. (2000). Cognitive Load and the Equality Heuristic: A Two-Stage Model of Resource Overconsumption in Small Groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83(2), 185--212.

Rubinstein, A., & Salant, Y. (2006). A model of choice from lists. Theoretical Economics, 1(1), 3--17.

Sanjurjo, A. (2015). Search, memory, and choice error: an experiment. PloS ONE, 10(6), e0126508.

Sanjurjo, A. (2017). Search with multiple attributes: Theory and empirics. Games and Economic Behavior, 104, 535--562.

Schulz, J.F., Fischbacher, U., Thöni, C., & Utikal, V. (2014). Affect and fairness: Dictator games under cognitive load. Journal of Economic Psychology, 41, 77--87.

Schwarz, G.E. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 461--464.

Smith, V.L. (1976). Experimental economics: Induced value theory. American Economic Review, 66(2), 274--279.

Sopher, B., & Gigliotti, G. (1993). Intransitive cycles: Rational Choice or random error? An answer based on estimation of error rates with experimental data. Theory and Decision, 35(3), 311--336.

Sopher, B., & Narramore, J.M. (2000). Stochastic choice and consistency in decision making under risk: An experimental study. Theory and Decision, 48(4), 323--350.

Summerfield, C., & Tsetsos, K. (2012). Building bridges between perceptual and economic decision-making: neural and computational mechanisms. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 6, 70.

Swann, W.B., Hixon, G, Stein-Seroussi, A., & Gilbert, D.T. (1990). The Fleeting Gleam of Praise: Cognitive Processes Underlying Behavioral Reactions to Self-Relevant Feedback. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (1), 17--26.

Thurstone, L.L. (1927a). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34(4), 273--286.

Thurstone, L.L. (1927b). Psychophysical Analysis. American Journal of Psychology, 38(3), 368--389.

Tsetsos, K., Chater, N., & Usher, M. (2012). Salience driven value integration explains decision biases and preference reversal. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(24), 9659--9664.

Tsetsos, K., Moran, R., Moreland, J., Chater, N., Usher, M., & Summerfield, C. (2016). Economic irrationality is optimal during noisy decision making. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(11), 3102--3107.

Tversky, A. (1969). Intransitivity of preferences. Psychological Review, 76(1), 31--48.

Tyson, C.J. (2008). Cognitive constraints, contraction consistency, and the satisficing criterion. Journal of Economic Theory, 138(1), 51--70.

Volkmann, J. (1934). The relation of the time of judgment to the certainty of judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 31(9), 672--673.

Weber, E. (1834). De Tactu. (The Sense of Touch, translated 1978. Academic Press, New York.)

Weibull, J.W., Mattsson, L.G., & Voorneveld, M. (2007). Better may be worse: Some monotonicity results and paradoxes in discrete choice under uncertainty. Theory and Decision, 63(2), 121--151.

Wilcox, N.T. (2011). `Stochastically more risk averse:' A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk. Journal of Econometrics, 162(1), 89--104.

Woodford, M. (2014). Stochastic choice: An optimizing neuroeconomic model. American Economic Review, 104(5), 495--500.

Yellott, J.I. (1977). The relationship between Luce's Choice Axiom, Thurstone's Theory of Comparative Judgment, and the double exponential distribution. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(2), 109--144.

Yeshurun, Y., & Carrasco, M. (1998). Attention improves or impairs visual performance by enhancing spatial resolution. Nature, 396(6706), 72--75.

Zeigenfuse, M.D., Pleskac, T.J., & Liu, T. (2014). Rapid decisions from experience. Cognition, 131(2), 181--194.

Zokaei, N., Heider, M., & Husain, M. (2014). Attention is required for maintenance of feature binding in visual working memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(6), 1191--1213.