IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rco/dpaper/84.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Risk, Time Pressure, and Selection Effects

Author

Listed:
  • Kocher, Martin

    (University of Vienna)

  • Schindler, David

    (Tilburg University)

  • Trautmann, Stefan

    (University of Heidelberg)

  • Xu, Yilong

    (Uinversity of Heidelberg)

Abstract

Time pressure is a central aspect of economic decision making nowadays. It is therefore natural to ask how time pressure affects decisions, and how to detect individual heterogeneity in the ability to successfully cope with time pressure. In the context of risky decisions, we ask whether a person\'s performance under time pressure can be predicted by measurable behavior and traits, and whether such measurement itself may be affected by selection issues. We find that the ability to cope with time pressure varies significantly across decision makers, leading to selected subgroups that differ in terms of their observed behaviors and personal traits. Moreover, measures of cognitive ability and intellectual efficiency jointly predict individuals\' decision quality and ability to keep their decision strategy under time pressure.

Suggested Citation

  • Kocher, Martin & Schindler, David & Trautmann, Stefan & Xu, Yilong, 2018. "Risk, Time Pressure, and Selection Effects," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 84, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    • Handle: RePEc:rco:dpaper:84
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://rationality-and-competition.de/wp-content/uploads/discussion_paper/84.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2010. "Are Risk Aversion and Impatience Related to Cognitive Ability?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 1238-1260, June.
    2. Buckert, Magdalena & Oechssler, Jörg & Schwieren, Christiane, 2017. "Imitation under stress," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 252-266.
    3. Anna Conte & Marco Scarsini & Oktay Sürücü, 2016. "The impact of time limitation: Insights from a queueing experiment," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(3), pages 260-274, May.
    4. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2015. "Do Natural Field Experiments Afford Researchers More or Less Control than Laboratory Experiments? A Simple Model," NBER Working Papers 20877, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Ola Andersson & Håkan J. Holm & Jean-Robert Tyran & Erik Wengström, 2016. "Risk Aversion Relates to Cognitive Ability: Preferences Or Noise?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 14(5), pages 1129-1154.
    6. Kocher, Martin G. & Sutter, Matthias, 2006. "Time is money--Time pressure, incentives, and the quality of decision-making," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 375-392, November.
    7. Sugden, Robert & Wang, Mengjie & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2019. "Take it or leave it: Experimental evidence on the effect of time-limited offers on consumer behaviour," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 1-23.
    8. Martin G. Kocher & Julius Pahlke & Stefan T. Trautmann, 2013. "Tempus Fugit : Time Pressure in Risky Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(10), pages 2380-2391, October.
    9. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    10. Xavier Gabaix & David Laibson & Guillermo Moloche & Stephen Weinberg, 2006. "Costly Information Acquisition: Experimental Analysis of a Boundedly Rational Model," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1043-1068, September.
    11. Marco Casari & John C. Ham & John H. Kagel, 2007. "Selection Bias, Demographic Effects, and Ability Effects in Common Value Auction Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1278-1304, September.
    12. De Paola, Maria & Gioia, Francesca, 2016. "Who performs better under time pressure? Results from a field experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 37-53.
    13. Saqib, Najam U. & Chan, Eugene Y., 2015. "Time pressure reverses risk preferences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 58-68.
    14. Katarzyna Gawryluk & Michal Krawczyk, 2017. "Probability weighting under time pressure: applying the double-response method," Working Papers 2017-08, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    15. Alexander W. Cappelen & Ulrik H. Nielsen & Bertil Tungodden & Jean-Robert Tyran & Erik Wengström, 2016. "Fairness is intuitive," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(4), pages 727-740, December.
    16. Haji, Anouar El & Krawczyk, Michał & Sylwestrzak, Marta & Zawojska, Ewa, 2019. "Time pressure and risk taking in auctions: A field experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 68-79.
    17. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    18. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    19. Yixin Hu & Dawei Wang & Kaiyuan Pang & Guangxing Xu & Jinhong Guo, 2015. "The effect of emotion and time pressure on risk decision-making," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(5), pages 637-650, May.
    20. Michael Kirchler & David Andersson & Caroline Bonn & Magnus Johannesson & Erik Ø. Sørensen & Matthias Stefan & Gustav Tinghög & Daniel Västfjäll, 2017. "The effect of fast and slow decisions on risk taking," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 37-59, February.
    21. Sutter, Matthias & Kocher, Martin & Strau[ss], Sabine, 2003. "Bargaining under time pressure in an experimental ultimatum game," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 81(3), pages 341-347, December.
    22. Daniel J. Benjamin & Sebastian A. Brown & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2013. "Who Is ‘Behavioral’? Cognitive Ability And Anomalous Preferences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(6), pages 1231-1255, December.
    23. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2015. "Do Natural Field Experiments Afford Researchers More or Less Control Than Laboratory Experiments?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 462-466, May.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. Wolff, Irenaeus, 2019. "The reliability of questionnaires in laboratory experiments: What can we do?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    2. Katarzyna Gawryluk & Michal Krawczyk, 2019. "Additional deliberation reduces pessimism: evidence from the double-response method," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 51-64, August.
    3. Joaquina Couto & Leendert van Maanen & Maël Lebreton, 2020. "Investigating the origin and consequences of endogenous default options in repeated economic choices," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-19, August.
    4. Justin Buffat & Matthias Praxmarer & Matthias Sutter, 2020. "The Intrinsic Value of Decision Rights: A Note on Team vs Individual Decision-Making," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2020_30, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    5. De Paola, Maria & Gioia, Francesca & Pupo, Valeria, 2020. "Selection and Incentives under Time Pressure: The Importance of Framing," IZA Discussion Papers 13474, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Dilmaghani, Maryam, 2020. "Gender differences in performance under time constraint: Evidence from chess tournaments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    7. Ennio Bilancini & Leonardo Boncinelli & Lorenzo Spadoni, 2020. "Motivating Risky Choices Increases Risk Taking," Working Papers CESARE 1/2020, Dipartimento di Economia e Finanza, LUISS Guido Carli.
    8. Aurélie Dariel & Nikos Nikiforakis & Jan Stoop, 2020. "Does selection bias cause us to overestimate gender differences in competitiveness?," Working Papers 20200046, New York University Abu Dhabi, Department of Social Science, revised May 2020.
    9. Steven Tucker & Yilong Xu, 2020. "Nonspeculative Bubbles Revisited: Speculation Does Matter," Working Papers in Economics 20/09, University of Waikato.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. De Paola, Maria & Gioia, Francesca & Pupo, Valeria, 2020. "Selection and Incentives under Time Pressure: The Importance of Framing," IZA Discussion Papers 13474, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Jan Hausfeld & Sven Resnjanskij, 2018. "Risky Decisions and the Opportunity Cost of Time," ifo Working Paper Series 269, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    3. Dilmaghani, Maryam, 2020. "Gender differences in performance under time constraint: Evidence from chess tournaments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    4. Michael Kirchler & David Andersson & Caroline Bonn & Magnus Johannesson & Erik Ø. Sørensen & Matthias Stefan & Gustav Tinghög & Daniel Västfjäll, 2017. "The effect of fast and slow decisions on risk taking," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 37-59, February.
    5. Buckert, Magdalena & Oechssler, Jörg & Schwieren, Christiane, 2017. "Imitation under stress," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 252-266.
    6. Recalde, María P. & Riedl, Arno & Vesterlund, Lise, 2018. "Error-prone inference from response time: The case of intuitive generosity in public-good games," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 132-147.
    7. Gerhardt, Holger & Schildberg-Hörisch, Hannah & Willrodt, Jana, 2017. "Does self-control depletion affect risk attitudes?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 463-487.
    8. Barrafrem, Kinga & Hausfeld, Jan, 2020. "Tracing risky decisions for oneself and others: The role of intuition and deliberation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    9. Jan Hausfeld & Sven Resnjanskij, 2017. "Risky Decisions and the Opportunity Costs of Time," TWI Research Paper Series 108, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
    10. Anders Poulsen & Axel Sonntag, 2019. "Focality is Intuitive - Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Time Pressure in Coordination Games," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 19-01, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    11. Niu, Xiaofei & Li, Jianbiao, 2019. "How Time Constraint Affects the Disposition Effect?," EconStor Preprints 194618, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    12. Lindner, Florian & Rose, Julia, 2017. "No need for more time: Intertemporal allocation decisions under time pressure," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 53-70.
    13. Zhixin Xie & Lionel Page & Ben Hardy, 2016. "Investigating gender differences under time pressure in financial risk taking," QuBE Working Papers 045, QUT Business School.
    14. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2019. "How related are risk preferences and time preferences?," CLTS Working Papers 4/19, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 16 Oct 2019.
    15. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    16. Tabea Herrmann & Olaf Hübler & Lukas Menkhoff & Ulrich Schmidt, 2017. "Allais for the poor: Relations to ability, information processing, and risk attitudes," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 129-156, April.
    17. Antonio Filippin & Paolo Crosetto, 2016. "A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(11), pages 3138-3160, November.
    18. Hubert János Kiss & Ismael Rodriguez-Lara & Alfonso Rosa-García, 2014. "Think Twice Before Running! Bank Runs and Cognitive Abilities," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1428, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    19. Andreas C. Drichoutis & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2015. "Do Risk and Time Preferences Have Biological Roots?," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 82(1), pages 235-256, July.
    20. Marcela Ibanez & Simon Czermak & Matthias Sutter, "undated". "Searching for a better deal ? On the influence of group decision making, time pressure and gender in a search experiment," Working Papers 2008-05, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    risk; cognitive ability; selection; time pressure;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rco:dpaper:84. 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: (Viviana Lalli). General contact details of provider: https://rationality-and-competition.de .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.