Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Multiple-Reason Decision Making Based on Automatic Processing

Contents:

Author Info

  • Andreas Glöckner

    ()
    (Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn)

  • Tilmann Betsch

    (University of Erfurt)

Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    It has been repeatedly shown that in decisions under time constraints, individuals predominantly use noncompensatory strategies rather than complex compensatory ones. We argue that these findings might be due not to limitations of cognitive capacity but instead to limitations of information search imposed by the commonly used experimental tool Mouselab (Payne et al., 1988). We tested this assumption in three experiments. In the first experiment, information was openly presented, whereas in the second experiment the standard Mouselab program was used under different time limits. The results indicate that individuals are able to compute weighted additive decision strategies extremely quickly if information search is not restricted by the experimental procedure. In a third experiment, these results were replicated using more complex decision tasks, and the major alternative explanations that individuals use more complex heuristics or merely encode the constellation of cues were ruled out. In sum, the findings challenge the fundaments of bounded rationality and highlight the importance of automatic processes in decision making.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.coll.mpg.de/pdf_dat/2008_12online.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods in its series Working Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods with number 2008_12.

    as in new window
    Length: 46 pages
    Date of creation: Apr 2008
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:mpg:wpaper:2008_12

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: Kurt-Schumacher-Str. 10 - D- 53113 Bonn
    Phone: +49-(0)228 / 91416-0
    Fax: +49-(0)228 / 91416-55
    Email:
    Web page: http://www.coll.mpg.de/
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords: Automatic Information Integration; One Reason Decision Making; Mouselab; Probabilistic Inferences; Process Tracing; Time Limits; Intuition;

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Glimcher, Paul W. & Dorris, Michael C. & Bayer, Hannah M., 2005. "Physiological utility theory and the neuroeconomics of choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 213-256, August.
    2. Lohse, Gerald L. & Johnson, Eric J., 1996. "A Comparison of Two Process Tracing Methods for Choice Tasks," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 28-43, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Anke Soellner & Arndt Broeder & Benjamin E. Hilbig, 2013. "Deliberation versus automaticity in decision making: Which presentation format features facilitate automatic decision making?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(3), pages 278-298, May.
    2. Michael D. Lee & Benjamin R. Newell, 2011. "Using hierarchical Bayesian methods to examine the tools of decision-making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 832-842, December.
    3. Andreas Gloeckner & Steffen Moritz, 2009. "A fine-grained analysis of the jumping-to-conclusions bias in schizophrenia: Data-gathering, response confidence, and information integration}," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(7), pages 587-600, December.
    4. Nina Horstmann & Andrea Ahlgrimm & Andreas Gl�ckner, 2009. "How distinct are intuition and deliberation? An eye-tracking analysis of instruction-induced decision modes," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(5), pages 335-354, August.
    5. Salzberger, Thomas & Koller, Monika, 2013. "Towards a new paradigm of measurement in marketing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1307-1317.
    6. Ana M. Franco-Watkins & Joseph G. Johnson, 2011. "Applying the decision moving window to risky choice: Comparison of eye-tracking and mousetracing methods," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 740-749, December.
    7. Andreas Glöckner & Stephan Dickert, 2008. "Base-rate Respect by Intuition: Approximating Rational Choices in Base-rate Tasks with Multiple Cues," Working Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2008_49, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    8. Andreas Glöckner & Ann-Katrin Herbold, 2008. "Information Processing in Decisions under Risk: Evidence for Compensatory Strategies based on Automatic Processes," Working Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2008_42, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    9. Christoph Engel & Andreas Glöckner, 2008. "Can We Trust Intuitive Jurors? An Experimental Analysis," Working Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2008_36, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    10. Whitman, Jennifer C. & Woodward, Todd S., 2012. "Self-selection bias in hypothesis comparison," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 216-225.
    11. Rudiger F. Pohl, 2011. "On the use of recognition in inferential decision making: An overview of the debate," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(5), pages 423-438, July.
    12. Charles Cunningham & Ken Deal & Yvonne Chen, 2010. "Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 257-273, December.
    13. Morten Moshagen & Benjamin E. Hilbig, 2011. "Methodological notes on model comparisons and strategy classification: A falsificationist proposition," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 814-820, December.
    14. Nils Reisen & Ulrich Hoffrage & Fred W. Mast, 2008. "Identifying decision strategies in a consumer choice situation," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3(8), pages 641-658, December.
    15. Andreas Glockner & Tilmann Betsch, 2011. "The Empirical content of theories in judgment and decision making: Shortcomings and remedies," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 711-721, December.
    16. Anthony M. Evans & Joachim I. Krueger, 2014. "Outcomes and expectations in dilemmas of trust," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(2), pages 90-103, March.
    17. Andreas Glockner & Arndt Broder, 2014. "Cognitive integration of recognition information and additional cues in memory-based decisions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(1), pages 35-50, January.
    18. Britta Herbig & Andreas Glöckner, 2009. "Experts and Decision Making: First Steps Towards a Unifying Theory of Decision Making in Novices, Intermediates and Experts," Working Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2009_02, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    19. Marc Jekel & Andreas Glockner & Arndt Broder & Viktoriya Maydych, 2014. "Approximating rationality under incomplete information: Adaptive inferences for missing cue values based on cue-discrimination," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(2), pages 129-147, March.
    20. Marc Jekel & Susann Fiedler & Andreas Glockner, 2011. "Diagnostic task selection for strategy classification in judgment and decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 782-799, December.
    21. Shahar Ayal & Guy Hochman & Dan Zakay, 2011. "Two sides of the same coin: Information processing style and reverse biases," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(4), pages 295-306, June.
    22. Nina Horstmann & Andrea Ahlgrimm & Andreas Glöckner, 2009. "How Distinct are Intuition and Deliberation? An Eye-Tracking Analysis of Instruction-Induced Decision Modes," Working Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2009_10, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    23. Juliane E. Kaemmer & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Uwe Czienskowski, 2013. "The environment matters: Comparing individuals and dyads in their adaptive use of decision strategies," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(3), pages 299-329, May.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mpg:wpaper:2008_12. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Marc Martin).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.