Abstract
Choice probability and choice response time data from a risk-taking decision-making task were compared with predictions made by a sequential sampling model. The behavioral data, consistent with the model, showed that participants were less likely to take an action as risk levels increased, and that time pressure did not have a uniform effect on choice probability. Under time pressure, participants were more conservative at the lower risk levels but were more prone to take risks at the higher levels of risk. This crossover interaction reflected a reduction of the threshold within a single decision strategy rather than a switching of decision strategies. Response time data, as predicted by the model, showed that participants took more time to make decisions at the moderate risk levels and that time pressure reduced response time across all risk levels, but particularly at the those risk levels that took longer time with no pressure. Finally, response time data were used to rule out the hypothesis that time pressure effects could be explained by a fast-guess strategy.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
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. 61–99). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Anderson, G., &Brown, R. I. (1984). Real and laboratory gambling, sensation-seeking and arousal.British Journal of Psychology,75, 401–410.
Aschenbrenner, K. M., Albert, D., &Schmalhofer, F. (1986). Stochastic choice heuristics.Acta Psychologica,56, 153–166.
Ben Zur, H., &Breznitz, S. J. (1981). The effect of time pressure on risky choice behavior.Acta Psychologica,47, 89–104.
Bond, N. (1974). Basic strategy and expectation in casino blackjack.Organizational Behavior & Human Performance,12, 413–428.
Busemeyer, J. R. (1982). Choice behavior in a sequential decision making task.Organizational Behavior & Human Performance,29, 175–207.
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.
Busemeyer, J. R., &Townsend, J. T. (1992). Fundamental derivations for decision field theory.Mathematical Social Sciences,23, 255–282.
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.
Diederich, A. (1995). A dynamic model for multi-attribute decision problems. In J. Caverni, M. Bar-Hillel, F. Hutton-Barron, & H. Jungermann (Eds.),Contributions to decision making (pp. 75–191). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Dror, I. E., &Gallogly, D. P. (1999). Computational analyses in cognitive neuroscience: In defense of biological implausibility.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,6, 173–182.
Dror, I. E., Katona, M., &Mungur, K. (1998). Aging and decision making: To take a risk or not?Gerontology,44, 67–71.
Dror, I. E., Rafaely, V., & Busemeyer, J. R. (1999).The dynamics of decision making as a function of recent outcomes and possible consequences. Paper presented at the Sixth European Congress of Psychology, Rome.
Goldstein, W. M., &Weber, E. U. (1996). Content and discontent: Indications and implications of domain specificity in preferential decision making. In J. R. Busemeyer, D. L. Medin, & R. Hastie (Eds.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 32. Decision making from a cognitive perspective (pp. 83–126). New York: Academic Press.
Johnson, E. J., Payne, J. W., &Bettman, J. R. (1995). Adapting to time constraints. In O. Svenson & J. Maule (Eds.),Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making (pp. 167–178). New York: Plenum.
Keren, G. B., &Wagenaar, W. A. (1985). On the psychology of playing blackjack: Normative and descriptive considerations with implications for decision theory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,114, 113–158.
Kornbrot, D. E. (1989). Random walk models of binary choice: The effect of deadlines in the presence of asymmetric payoffs.Acta Psychologica,72, 103.
Link, S. W. (1992).The wave theory of difference similarity. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nosofsky, R. M., &Palmeri, T. J. (1997). An exemplar based random walk model of speeded classification.Psychological Review,104, 266–300.
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., &Luce, M. F. (1996). When time is money: Decision behavior under opportunity-cost time pressure.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,66, 131–152.
Petrusic, W. M., &Jamieson, D. G. (1978). Relation between probability of preferential choice and time to choose changes with practice.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,4, 471–482.
Phillips, J. G., &Amrhein, P. C. (1989). Factors influencing wagers in simulated blackjack.Journal of Gambling Behavior,5, 99–111.
Rafaely, V., Dror, I. E., &Busemeyer, J. R. (1998). The susceptibility of young and old adults to positive and negative outcomes of recent decisions.Abstracts of the Psychonomic Society,3, 41.
Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval.Psychological Review,85, 59–108.
Ratcliff, R., Van Zandt, T., & McKoon, G. (in press). Connectionist and diffusion models of reaction time.Psychological Review.
Smith, P. L. (1995). Psychophysically principled models of visual simple reaction time.Psychological Review,102, 567–593.
Svenson, O., &Maule, J. (1995).Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making. New York: Plenum.
Townsend, J. T., &Busemeyer, J. R. (1996). Dynamic representation of decision-making. In R. F. Port & T. van Gelder (Eds.),Mind as motion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wallsten, T. S. (1995). Time pressure and payoff effects on multidimensional probabilistic inference. In O. Svenson & J. Maule (Eds.),Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making (pp. 167–178). New York: Plenum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by grants funded by AFRL (awarded to the first author) and by NSF Grant SBR-9602102 and NIMH Grant 5R01MH55680 (awarded to the second author).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dror, I.E., Basola, B. & Busemeyer, J.R. Decision making under time pressure: An independent test of sequential sampling models. Memory & Cognition 27, 713–725 (1999). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211564
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211564