Eye-tracking and economic theories of choice under risk

  • Glenn W. Harrison
  • J. Todd SwarthoutEmail author
Original Paper


We examine the ability of eye movement data to help understand the determinants of decision-making over risky prospects. We start with structural models of choice under risk, and use that structure to inform what we identify from the use of process data in addition to choice data. We find that information on eye movements does significantly affect the extent and nature of probability weighting behavior. Our structural model allows us to show the pathway of the effect, rather than simply identifying a reduced form effect. This insight should be of importance for the normative design of choice mechanisms for risky products. We also show that decision-response duration is no substitute for the richer information provided by eye-tracking.


Risk Individual decision making Choice Visual attention Eye tracking Experiment 

JEL Classification

D81 D83 C91 



We are grateful to two references and a Guest Editor for helpful comments.

Supplementary material

40881_2019_63_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (677 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 677 kb)


  1. Arieli, A., Ben-Ami, Y., & Rubinstein, A. (2011). Tracking decision makers under uncertainty. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 3(4), 68–76.Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson, J. W., & Birch, D. (1970). The dynamics of action. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Busemeyer, J. R., Forsyth, B., & Nozawa, G. (1988). Comparisons of elimination by aspects and suppression of aspects choice models based on choice response time. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 32(3), 341–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review, 100(3), 432–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fiedler, S., & Glöckner, A. (2012). The dynamics of decision making in risky choice: An eye-tracking analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Glöckner, A., Fiedler, S., Hochman, G., Ayal, S., & Hilbig, B. E. (2012). Processing differences between descriptions and experience: A comparative analysis using eye-tracking and physiological measures”. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Glöckner, A., & Herbold, A. (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, 71–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grossberg, S., & Gutowski, W. E. (1987). Neural dynamics of decision making under risk: Affective balance and cognitive–emotional interactions. Psychological Review, 94(3), 300–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Harrison, G. W. (2008). Neuroeconomics: A critical reconsideration. Economics and Philosophy, 24(3), 303–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harrison, G. W., & Ng, J. M. (2016). Evaluating the expected welfare gain of insurance. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 83(1), 91–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harrison, G. W., & Ross, D. (2018). Varieties of paternalism and the heterogeneity of utility structures. Journal of Economic Methodology, 25(1), 42–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2008). Risk aversion in the laboratory. In J. C. Cox & G. W. Harrison (Eds.), Risk aversion in experiments (Vol. 12). Bingley: Emerald, Research in Experimental Economics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2009). Expected utility and prospect theory: One wedding and a decent funeral. Experimental Economics, 12(2), 133–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Janowski, V. (2012). Computational biases in decision-making. Ph.D Thesis Dissertation, California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  15. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lohse, G. L., & Johnson, E. J. (1996). A comparison of two process tracing methods for choice tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68(1), 28–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marley, A. A. J. (1981). Multivariate stochastic processes compatible with ‘Aspect’ models of similarity and choice. Psychometrika, 46(4), 421–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marley, A. A. J. (1989). A random utility family that includes many of the ‘classical’ models and has closed form choice probabilities and choice reaction times. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 42(1), 13–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Orquin, J. L., & Loose, S. M. (2013). Attention and choice: A review on eye movements in decision making. Acta Psychologica, 144, 190–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pachur, T., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Murphy, R. O., & Hertwig, R. (2018). Prospect theory reflects selective allocation of attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(2), 147–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Posner, M. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Prelec, D. (1998). The probability weighting function. Econometrica, 66, 497–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Quiggin, J. (1982). A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3(4), 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rosen, L. D., & Rosenkoetter, P. (1976). An eye fixation analysis of choice and judgment with multiattribute stimuli. Memory and Cognition, 4(6), 747–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Russo, J. E., & Dosher, B. A. (1983). Strategies for multiattribute binary choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 9, 676–696.Google Scholar
  29. Stewart, N., Hermens, F., & Matthews, W. J. (2016). Eye movements in risky choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29, 116–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79(4), 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Risk Management and Insurance and Center for the Economic Analysis of Risk, Robinson College of BusinessGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Economics and Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy StudiesGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.School of EconomicsUniversity of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations