Think fast! The implications of emphasizing urgency in decision-making

Evidence accumulation models (EAMs) have become the dominant explanation of how the decision-making process operates, proposing that decisions are the result of a process of evidence accumulation. The primary use of EAMs has been as "measurement tools" of the underlying decision-making process, where researchers apply EAMs to empirical data to estimate participants' task ability (i.e., the "drift rate"), response caution (i.e., the "decision threshold"), and the time taken for other processes (i.e., the "non-decision time"), making EAMs a powerful tool for discriminating between competing psychological theories. Recent studies have brought into question the mapping between the latent parameters of EAMs and the theoretical constructs that they are thought to represent, showing that emphasizing urgent responding - which intuitively should selectively influence decision threshold - may also influence drift rate and/or non-decision time. However, these findings have been mixed, leading to differences in opinion between experts in the field. The current study aims to provide a more conclusive answer to the implications of emphasizing urgent responding, providing a re-analysis of 6 data sets from previous studies using two different EAMs - the diffusion model and the linear ballistic accumulator (LBA) - with state-of-the-art methods for model selection based inference. The findings display clear evidence for a difference in conclusions between the two models, with the diffusion model suggesting that decision threshold and non-decision time decrease when urgency is emphasized, and the LBA suggesting that decision threshold and drift rate decrease when urgency is emphasized. Furthermore, although these models disagree regarding whether non-decision time or drift rate decrease under urgency emphasis, both show clear evidence that emphasizing urgency does not selectively influence decision threshold. These findings suggest that researchers should revise their assumptions about certain experimental manipulations, the specification of certain EAMs, or perhaps both.