Advertisement

The Effect of Time Pressure in Multiattribute Binary Choice Tasks

  • Ulf Böckenholt
  • Keith Kroeger

Abstract

Constraints in resources such as time, money, and information have a strong and systematic influence on choice behavior. Although some of these constraints may occur as natural features of a choice situation, others may be self-imposed by the decision maker, to limit an agonizing deliberation process about a decision problem. It is surprising that despite their prevalent influence, the topic of resource constraints has received little attention in the decision-making literature. For example, only a few studies consider the impact of time pressure on the decision process, and even fewer studies examine the influence of self-imposed time constraints (Mano, 1989). However, the few systematic investigations examining subjects’ judgment and decision-making behavior under time pressure demonstrate that time pressure may affect every stage in a decision process from the information selection, evaluation, and aggregation stages to the actual choice (Busemeyer, 1985; Payne, Bettman, & Johnson, 1988; Svenson & Edland, 1987; Wright, 1974). Effects of time pressure are also reflected by postdecisional variables such as confidence (Smith, Mitchell, & Beach, 1982; Zakay, 1985).

Keywords

Time Pressure Choice Alternative Choice Situation Attractiveness Rating Choice Consistency 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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 Verlag.Google Scholar
  2. Aschenbrenner, K. M., Albert, D., & Schmalhofer, F. (1986). Stochastic choice heuristics. Acta Psychologica, 56, 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aschenbrenner, K. M., Böckenholt, U., Albert, D., & Schmalhofer, F. (1986). The selection of dimensions when choosing between multiattribute alternatives. In R. W. Scholz (Ed.), Current issues in West German decision research (pp. 63–78 ). Frankfurt: Lang Publisher.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Ben Zur, H., & Breznitz, S. J. (1981). The effects of time pressure on risky choice behavior. Acta Psychologica, 47, 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bock, R. D. (1990). Multilevel analysis of educational data. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Böckenholt, U., Albert, D., Aschenbrenner, K. M., & Schmalhofer, F. (1991). The effect of attractiveness, dominance, and attribute differences on information acquisition in multi-attribute binary choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 49, 258–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Busemeyer, J. R. (1982). Choice behavior in a sequential decision making task. Organizational Behavioral and Human Performance, 29, 175–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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, and Cognition, 11,538–564.Google Scholar
  10. Christensen-Szalanski, J. J. J. (1980). A further examination of the selection of problem-solving strategies: The effects of deadlines and analytic aptitudes. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Falmagne, J. (1985). Elements of psychophysical theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Goldstein, H. (1987). Multilevel models in educational and social research. London: Griffin.Google Scholar
  13. Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  14. Mano, H. (1989). Anticipated deadline penalties: Effects on goal levels and task performance. In R. M. Hogarth (Ed.), Insights in decision making (pp. 154–172 ) Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Payne, J. W. (1976). Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 366–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Payne, J. W. (1982). Contingent decision behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 382–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1988). Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 534–552.Google Scholar
  18. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1990). The adaptive decision maker: Effort and accuracy in choice. In R. M. Hogarth (Ed.), Insights in decision making (pp. 129–153 ) Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Rouse, W. B. (1979). Problem-solving performance of maintenance trainees in a fault diagnosis task. Human Factors, 21, 195–203.Google Scholar
  20. Russo, J. E., & Dosher, B. A. (1983). Strategies for multiattribute binary choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 676–696.Google Scholar
  21. Russo, J. E., & Rosen, L. D. (1976). An eye fixation analysis of multialternative choice. Memory & Cognition, 3, 267–276.Google Scholar
  22. Smith, J. F., Mitchell, T. R., and Beach, L. R. (1982). A cost-benefit mechanism for selecting problem-solving strategies: Some extensions and empirical tests. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29, 370–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Svenson, O. (1979). Process descriptions of decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 86–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Svenson, O., & Edland, A. (1987). Change of preferences under time pressure: Choices and judgments. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 28, 322–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tversky, A. (1969). The intransitivity of preferences. Psychological Review, 76, 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wallsten, T. S., & Barton, C. (1982). Processing probabilistic multidimentional information for decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8, 361–384.Google Scholar
  27. Wright, P. (1974). The harassed decision maker: Time pressures, distractions, and the use of evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 555–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zakay, D. (1985). Post-decisional confidence and conflict experienced in a choice process. Acta Psychologica, 58, 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Bettman, J. R., Johnson, E. J., & Payne, J. W. (1990). A componential analysis of cognitive effort in choice. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 111 - 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Svenson, O. (1979). Process descriptions of decision making. Organisational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 86 - 112.Google Scholar
  31. Svenson, O., Edland, A., & Slovic, P. (1990). Choices between incompletely described alternatives under time stress. Acta Psychologica, 75, 153 - 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wright, P. L. (1974). The harassed decision maker: Time pressures, distractions and the use of evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 555 - 561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulf Böckenholt
    • 1
  • Keith Kroeger
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations