Abstract
Different preference-elicitation formats can induce different attentional patterns and yield conflicting apparent preference orders for the same options; a classic example is preference reversals between choice and willingness-to-pay (WTP) judgments. Reversals may be attributed to multiple different attentional features between choice and WTP, including initial attentional orientation, sustained attentional allocation, information search patterns, and information integration structures. To identify the mechanisms that underlie reversals, we combined experimental and computational modeling approaches to examine responses, response times, and gaze from participants who evaluated matched risky and/or delayed payoffs (prospects) through WTP and Choice. In WTP, payoff was more likely to be viewed first and most overall, and gaze transitions were organized around payoff, whereas Choice showed more variable first gaze orientation and attribute-wise transitions across prospects. Preference reversals were associated with a larger WTP-relative increase in payoff-directed gaze proportion (sustained attention) but not in the probability of payoff taking the first gaze (initial attention), indicating that anchoring may not be solely responsible for reversals. To connect these overt attentional patterns to latent decision processes, we extended the attention-guided evidence accumulation framework to continuous valuation and fit parallel WTP and Choice models with distinct information integration architectures. The fitted models’ generative predictions suggested that differential overall attribute weighting be not necessary for reversals to emerge, given model-specific information integration architectures. Behavioral data indicate a correspondence between reversals and greater overt attention (gaze) to payoff in WTP relative to choice, but model-based findings favor architectural differences between elicitation procedures—particularly, attribute-wise comparison in choice versus alternative-wise integration in WTP—as the most plausible explanation for reversals.