Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 157–166 | Cite as

MDFT account of decision making under time pressure

  • Adele DiederichEmail author
Brief Reports


In this paper, decision making under time pressure for multiattribute choice alternatives in a risky environment is investigated. A model, multiattribute decision field theory (MDFT), is introduced that describes both the dynamic and the stochastic nature of decision making and accounts for the observed changes in choice probabilities, including preference reversals as a function of time limit. An experiment in which five different time limits were imposed on the decision maker is presented to test the predictions of the model. It is shown that MDFT is able to account for the complex decision behavior observed in the data. Furthermore, MDFT is compared with the predictions of decision field theory (Busemeyer & Townsend, 1993; Roe, Busemeyer, & Townsend, 2001).


Decision Maker Time Pressure Choice Alternative Choice Probability Switching Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aschenbrenner, K. M., Albert, D., &Schmalhofer, F. (1984). Stochastic choice heuristics.Acta Psychologica,56, 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beach, L. R., &Mitchell, T. R. (1978). A contingency model for selection of decision strategies.Academy of Management Review,3, 439–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ben Zur, H., &Breznitz, S. J. (1981). The effect of time pressure on risky choice behavior.Acta Psychologica,47, 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Busemeyer, J. R. (1985). Decision making under uncertainty: A comparison of simple scalability, fixed-sample, and sequential-sampling models.Journal of Experimental Psychology,11, 538–564.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Busemeyer, J. R. (1993). Violations of the speed-accuracy tradeoff relation. Decrease in decision accuracy with increases in decision time. In O. Svenson & J. Maule (Eds.),Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making (pp. 181–193). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  6. Busemeyer, J. R., &Diederich, A. (2002). Survey of decision field theory.Mathematical Social Sciences,43, 345–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Busemeyer, J. R., &Townsend, J. T. (1992). Fundamental derivations from decision field theory.Mathematical Social Sciences,23, 255–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Busemeyer, J. R., &Townsend, J. T. (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision-making in an uncertain environment.Psychological Review,100, 432–459.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diederich, A. (1995). A dynamic model for multi-attributive decision problems. In J.-P. Caverni, M. Bar-Hillel, F. H. Barron, & H. Jungermann (Eds.),Contributions to decision making (Vol. I, pp. 175–191). Amsterdam: Elsevier, North-Holland.Google Scholar
  10. Diederich, A. (1996).Multi-attribute dynamic decision model: A cognitive dynamic approach for multiattribute binary choice tasks. Unpublished Habilitationsschrift, Universität Oldenburg.Google Scholar
  11. Diederich, A. (1997). Dynamic stochastic models for decision making with time constraints.Journal of Mathematical Psychology,41, 260–274.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diederich, A. (2001). Decision and choice: Sequential decision making. In A. A. J. Marley (Ed.),International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences. Amsterdam: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  13. Diederich, A. (2003). Decision making under conflict: Decision time as a measure of conflict strength.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,10, 167–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diederich, A., &Busemeyer, J. R. (1999). Conflict and the stochastic dominance principle of decision making.Psychological Science,10, 353–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dror, I. E., Busemeyer, J. R., &Basola, B. (1999). Decision making under time pressure: An independent test of sequential sampling models.Memory & Cognition,27, 713–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edland, A., &Svenson, O. (1993). Judgment and decision making under time pressure: Studies and findings. In O. Svenson & A. J. Maule (Eds.),Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making (pp. 27–39). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  17. Janis, I. L., &Mann, L. (1977).A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  18. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., &Johnson, E. J. (1988). Adaptive strategy selection in decision making.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,14, 534–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., &Schkade, D. A. (1999). Measuring constructed preferences: Towards a building code.Journal of Risk & Uncertainty,19, 243–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Roe, R. M., Busemeyer, J. R., &Townsend, J. T. (2001). Multialternative decision field theory: A dynamic connectionist model of decision making.Psychological Review,108, 370–392.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wallsten, T. S. (1993). Time pressure and payoff effects on multidimensional probabilistic inference. In O. Svenson & A. J. Maule (Eds.),Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making (pp. 167–179). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  22. Wallsten, T. S., &Barton, C. (1982). Processing probabilistic multidimensional information for decisions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,8, 361–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Humanities and Social SciencesInternational University BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations