Time Pressure and Payoff Effects on Multidimensional Probabilistic Inference

  • Thomas S. Wallsten


Beginning with Miller (1960), numerous authors (e.g., Ben Zur & Breznitz, 1981; Maule & Mackie, 1990; Payne, Bettman, & Johnson, 1988; Svenson & Edland, 1987) have distinguished the possible effects of time pressure on decision processes on the assumption that a given decision requires a sequence of mental steps prior to its execution. Most authors have considered four possible time pressure effects. One, termed acceleration, is that processing does not fundamentally change, but rather, each step is simply accelerated under a deadline. A second, termed filtering, is that the processing sequence is altered so that only the most important subset of the information is attended to or handled prior to the decision. Third, the decision maker may select strategies that are appropriate for the available time. Although not generally pointed out, these latter two alternatives are not mutually exclusive. That is, strategies under time pressure may focus on only the most important facets of the information whereas those in the absence of time pressure may utilize the available information more completely. The fourth possibility is that time pressure has no effect on the strategic aspects of information processing. Rather, the person simply stops processing when the time is up and makes a decision.


Time Pressure Probabilistic Inference Risky Choice Confidence Estimate Perceptual Salience 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ben Zur, H., & Breznitz, S. J. (1981). The effects of time pressure on risky choice behavior. Acta Psychologica, 47, 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (1992). Fundamental derivations from decision field theory. Mathematical Social Sciences, 23, 255–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Einhorn, H. J., Kleinmuntz, D. N., & Kleinmuntz, B. (1979). Linear regression and process-tracing models of judgment. Psychological Review, 86, 465–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Maule, A. J., & Mackie, P. (1990). A componential investigation of the effects of deadlines on individual decision making. In K. Borcherding, O. I. Larichev, & D. M. Messick (Eds.), Contemporary issues in decision making, (pp. 449–461 ). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. McCall, R. B., & Appelbaum, M. I. (1973). Bias in the analysis of repeated-measures designs: Some alternative approaches. Child Development, 44, 401–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Miller, J. G. (1960). Information input overload and psychopathology. American Journal of Psychiatry, 116, 695–704.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Svenson, O., & Edland, A. (1987). Change of preferences under time pressure: Choices and judgments. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 28, 322–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Wallsten, T. S. (1977). Processing information for decisions. In N. J. Castellan, D. B. Pisoni, & G. Potts (Eds.), Cognitive theory, (Vol. 2, pp. 87–116 ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Wallsten, T. S. (1980). Processes and models to describe choice and inference. In T. S. Wallsten (Ed.), Cognitive process in choice and decision behavior, (pp. 215–238 ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Wallsten, T. S., & Barton, C. (1982). Processing probabilistic multidimensional information for decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 8, 361–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Wright, P. (1974). The harassed decision maker: Time pressures, distraction, and the use of evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 555–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Zakay, D. (1985). Post-decisional confidence and conflict experienced in a choice process. Acta Psychologica, 58, 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas S. Wallsten
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations