Search

Reward outcomes associated with costs like time delay and effort investment are generally discounted in decision-making. Standard economic models predict rewards associated with different types of costs are devalued in a similar manner. However, our review of rodent lesion studies indicated partial dissociations between brain regions supporting temporal- and effort-based decision-making. Another debate is whether options involving low and high costs are processed in different brain substrates (dual-system) or in the same regions (single-system). This research addressed these issues using coordinate-based, connectivity-based, and activation network-based meta-analyses to identify overlapping and separable neural systems supporting temporal (39 studies) and effort (20 studies) discounting. Coordinate-based activation likelihood estimation and resting-state connectivity analyses showed immediate-small reward and delayed-large reward choices engaged distinct regions with unique connectivity profiles, but their activation network mapping was found to engage the default mode network. For effort discounting, salience and sensorimotor networks supported low-effort choices, while the frontoparietal network supported high-effort choices. There was little overlap between the temporal and effort networks. Our findings underscore the importance of differentiating different types of costs in decision-making and understanding discounting at both regional and network levels.

According to the dual-system theories, the decisions in an ultimatum game (UG) are governed by the automatic System 1 and the controlled System 2. The former drives the preference for fairness, whereas the latter drives the self-interest motive. However, the association between the contributions of the two systems in UG and the cognitive process needs more direct evidence. In the present study, we used the process dissociation procedure to estimate the contributions of the two systems and recorded participants eyemovements to examine the cognitive processes underlying UG decisions. Results showed that the estimated contributions of the two systems are uncorrelated and that they demonstrate a dissociated pattern of associations with third variables, such as reaction time (RT) and mean fixation duration (MFD). Furthermore, the relative time advantage (RTA) and the transitions between the two payoffs can predict the final UG decisions. Our findings provide evidence for the independent contributions of preference for fairness (System1) and self-interestmaximizing (System 2) inclinations to UG and shed light on the underlying processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the ability of a dual-system, formal modelof categorization COVIS (Ashby, Paul & Maddox, 2011) topredict the learning performance of participants on the six cat-egory structures described in Shepard, Hovland and Jenkin’s(1961) seminal study. COVIS assumes that category learningis mediated by two dissociable neural systems that compete tocontrol responding. The verbal system explicitly tests verbal-izable rules, whereas the implicit system gradually associateseach stimulus with the appropriate response. Although COVISis highly influential, there are no published evaluations of theformal model against classic category learning data (COVIS ismost typically applied heuristically to the design of new exper-iments). In the current paper, we begin to address this gap inthe literature. Specifically, we demonstrate that COVIS is ableto accommodate the ordinal pattern found by Shepard et al.,provided that adjustments consistent with the model’s theoret-ical framework are made.

The dual-system approach holds that deliberative decisions and in-depth evaluation processes lead people to better financial decisions. However, research identifies situations where optimal economic decisions may stem from a more intuitive decision process. In the current work, we present three experimental studies that examined how these two modes-of-thought affect financial decisions. In Study 1, deliberative processes were indeed associated with better one-shot descriptive-based financial decisions. However, Study 2 showed that when participants were asked to make repeated decisions and were required to learn from their experience, the advantage of deliberative over intuitive processes was eliminated. In addition, when participants employed intuitive processes, the quality of their financial decisions improved significantly with experience. Finally, Study 3 showed that the deliberative processing style may lose its advantage when information is not fully available. Overall, these findings suggest that deliberation may contribute to financial decision-making in one-shot decisions. However, when information is lacking, and decisions are repetitive, intuitive processes might be just as good. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The dual-system approach holds that deliberative decisions and in-depth evaluation processes lead people to better financial decisions. However, research identifies situations where optimal economic decisions may stem from a more intuitive decision process. In the current work, we present three experimental studies that examined how these two modes-of-thought affect financial decisions. In Study 1, deliberative processes were indeed associated with better one-shot descriptive-based financial decisions. However, Study 2 showed that when participants were asked to make repeated decisions and were required to learn from their experience, the advantage of deliberative over intuitive processes was eliminated. In addition, when participants employed intuitive processes, the quality of their financial decisions improved significantly with experience. Finally, Study 3 showed that the deliberative processing style may lose its advantage when information is not fully available. Overall, these findings suggest that deliberation may contribute to financial decision-making in one-shot decisions. However, when information is lacking, and decisions are repetitive, intuitive processes might be just as good.

Decision-making theories in tourism can be classified into three groups based on their underlined assumptions: rational choice, affect-driven and dual-process theories. Rational choice theories are the dominant framework in many fields including economics, political science, finance, marketing and tourism. Consumers are considered as “rational-decisionmakers” who evaluate available options by rational thinking. In contrast, the affect-driven theories assume that tourists are hedonic decision-makers and their choice is influenced and guided by affective factors (i.e., emotions, feelings). Dual-process theories reconcile these two opposite approaches by proposing a dual-system of decision-making: System 1 related to automatic, emotional, non-conscious process, and System 2 involving rational thinking. This review paper provides a general picture of how tourism decision-making literature has been developed with a focus on the latest advancement, dual-system theories. Tourism marketers may find this paper beneficial in understanding tourist behaviours, in particular, tourists’ destination choice. Traditional marketing focusing only on rational factors (comparative messages) can be a dead-end approach, experiential marketing has become the new trends. By advancing our knowledge of tourist decision-making, this paper provides useful guidelines for tourism marketers in designing tourist experiences and promoting tourism destinations.

Decision-making theories in tourism can be classified into three groups based on their underlined assumptions: rational choice, affect-driven and dual-process theories. Rational choice theories are the dominant framework in many fields including economics, political science, finance, and marketing. Consumers are considered as “rational-decision-makers” who evaluate available options by rational thinking. In contrast, the affec-driven theories assume that tourists are hedonic decision-makers and their choice is influencedand guided by affective factors (i.e., emotions, feelings). Dual-process theories reconcile these two opposite approaches by proposing a dual-system of decision making: System 1 related to automatic, emotional, non-conscious process, and System 2 involving rational thinking (Evans, 2008). This review paper provides a general picture of how tourism decision-making literature has been developed with a focus on the latest advancement, dual-system theories. Tourism marketers may find this paper beneficial in understanding tourist behaviours, in particular, tourists’ destination choice. By advancing our knowledge of tourist decisionmaking, this paper provides useful guidelines for tourism marketers to develop better marketing initiatives...

Highlights • Ductility demand of bilinear hysteretic system with high post-yield stiffness ratio. • Ductility demand spectra computed using 742 earthquake records. • Highly accurate probabilistic ductility demand model for dual-systems. • Step-by-step structural design process based on the ductility demand model. • Illustration of the probabilistic ductility demand model and the design process via a BRBF example. Abstract A structure designed in a dual-system configuration can help to achieve a damage-control and an earthquake-resilient property. In a dual-system, the primary structural system (PSS) and the replaceable fuse act in parallel, and the entire structure exhibits a multi-stage yielding mechanism under earthquake actions. To ensure the PSS keeps elastic, the dual-system is required to have a sufficient first-yielding stage wherein the fuse yields to dissipate the input energy. Accordingly, prediction of the structural ductility demand (μ) associated with the first-yielding stage is an important issue. In the first-yielding stage, the PSS remains elastic, making the post-yield stiffness ratio (α) much larger than conventional structures. This paper focuses on the ductility demand of bilinear hysteretic systems embedded with the high- α characteristic, which represent the dual-systems behaving within the elastic and the first-yielding stages. A total number of 742 strong earthquake records (490 of them are from stiff soil according to the standard of ASCE/SEI 7-10) are adopted to compute the ductility demand of 19,200 bilinear single-degree-of-freedom hysteretic systems. These systems have different combinations of strength levels (strength reduction factor 1.25 ≤ R ≤ 5.00), post-yield stiffness ratios (0.05 ≤ α ≤ 0.80) and natural periods (0.05 s ≤ T ≤ 5.00 s). It is revealed that for α ≥ 0.30, a larger α would lead to a slightly increased μ. Therefore, improving the value of α would not alleviate the expected inelastic displacement demand associated with the first-yielding stage for a dual-system, even though a larger α could remarkably reduce the dispersion of μ. A probabilistic spectral model for μ is developed, based on which the seismic performance of a dual-system could be checked in a statistic way. A trial-and-error design process for dual-systems is given, and the design-check process of a five-story buckling-restrained-braced frame is illustrated using the spectral model of μ. This study provides instructive results for the seismic design and retrofitting of dual-systems, as the effects of α , R and T on the values of μ for dual-systems are quantified appropriately. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Activation network mapping showed that both immediate and delayed choices engaged default mode network. • MACM and RSFC analyses showed immediate and delayed choices engaged distinct regions with distinct connectivity profile. • Salience and sensorimotor networks supported low-effort choices, while frontoparietal network supported high-effort choices. • There was little overlap between temporal and effort networks. Reward outcomes associated with costs like time delay and effort investment are generally discounted in decision-making. Standard economic models predict rewards associated with different types of costs are devalued in a similar manner. However, our review of rodent lesion studies indicated partial dissociations between brain regions supporting temporal- and effort-based decision-making. Another debate is whether options involving low and high costs are processed in different brain substrates (dual-system) or in the same regions (single-system). This research addressed these issues using coordinate-based, connectivity-based, and activation network-based meta-analyses to identify overlapping and separable neural systems supporting temporal (39 studies) and effort (20 studies) discounting. Coordinate-based activation likelihood estimation and resting-state connectivity analyses showed immediate-small reward and delayed-large reward choices engaged distinct regions with unique connectivity profiles, but their activation network mapping was found to engage the default mode network. For effort discounting, salience and sensorimotor networks supported low-effort choices, while the frontoparietal network supported high-effort choices. There was little overlap between the temporal and effort networks. Our findings underscore the importance of differentiating different types of costs in decision-making and understanding discounting at both regional and network levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the dual-system theories, the decisions in an ultimatum game (UG) are governed by the automatic System 1 and the controlled System 2. The former drives the preference for fairness, whereas the latter drives the self-interest motive. However, the association between the contributions of the two systems in UG and the cognitive process needs more direct evidence. In the present study, we used the process dissociation procedure to estimate the contributions of the two systems and recorded participants eye movements to examine the cognitive processes underlying UG decisions. Results showed that the estimated contributions of the two systems are uncorrelated and that they demonstrate a dissociated pattern of associations with third variables, such as reaction time (RT) and mean fixation duration (MFD). Furthermore, the relative time advantage (RTA) and the transitions between the two payoffs can predict the final UG decisions. Our findings provide evidence for the independent contributions of preference for fairness (System 1) and self-interest maximizing (System 2) inclinations to UG and shed light on the underlying processes., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wei, Li, Liang and Liu.)