Violations of the Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff Relation
Beginning with the seminal work by Simon (1955), decision making has been conceptualized in terms of information-processing systems that take anticipated future consequences as input, and after processing this information for some period of time, produce an action as output. Decision researches have considered two primary ways to measure the “performance” of a decision process. One way is in terms of the “accuracy” of the process—the probability that the process selects the “best” action, where best is defined by an accepted normative theory (e.g., Expected Utility Theory). The other way is in terms of effort—the average amount of time or number of mental operations required to reach a decision. The ideal decision process would be the one that maximizes accuracy and minimizes effort. Unfortunately, these two performance measures tend to be positively related—a decrease in effort usually produces a decrease in accuracy. Thus the decision maker has to tradeoff effort for accuracy. How this is done is the primary question addressed in this chapter.
KeywordsPreference State Decision Time Choice Probability Expect Utility Theory Decision Accuracy
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Albert, D., Aschenbrenner, K. M., & Schmalhofer, F. (1989). Cognitive choice processes and the attitude-behavior relation. In A. Upmeyer (Ed.), Attitudes and behavioral decisions (pp. 6199 ). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Beach, L. R., & Mitchell, T. R. (1978). A contingency model for the selection of decision strategies. Academy of Management Review, 3, 439–449.Google Scholar
- Busemeyer, J. R. (1985). Decision making under uncertainty: A comparison of simple scalability, fixed sample, and sequential sampling models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, Cognition, 11, 538–564.Google Scholar
- Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (1989). Decision Field Theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making. Purdue Mathematical Psychology Program Technical Report No. 89–7.Google Scholar
- Johnson, E. J., & Payne, J. W. (1985). Effort and accuracy in choice. Management Science, 31, 395414.Google Scholar
- Link, S. W. (1978). The relative judgment theory analysis of response deadline experiments. In N. J. Castellan, Jr., & F. Restle (Eds.), Cognitive theory, III (pp. 117–138 ).Google Scholar
- Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Myung, I. J., & Busemeyer, J. R. (1989). Criterion learning in a deferred decision-making task. American Journal of Psychology, 102, 1–16.Google Scholar
- Pachella, R. G. (1974). The interpretation of reaction time in information processing research. In B. Kantowitz (Ed.), Human information processing: Tutorials in performance and cognition. (pp. 41–82 ) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Schmalhofer, F., Albert, D., Aschenbrenner, K. M., & Gertzen, H. (1986). Process traces of binary choices: Evidence for selective and adaptive decision heuristics. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38A, 59–76.Google Scholar
- Wallsten, T. S., & Barton, C. (1982). Processing probabilistic multidimensional information for decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8, 36 1384.Google Scholar