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. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. David G. Rand & Joshua D. Greene & Martin A. Nowak, 2012. "Spontaneous giving and calculated greed," Nature, Nature, vol. 489(7416), pages 427-430, September.
    6. 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.
    7. Buckert, Magdalena & Oechssler, Jörg & Schwieren, Christiane, 2017. "Imitation under stress," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 252-266.
    8. 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.
    9. Payne, John W. & Bettman, James R. & Luce, Mary Frances, 1996. "When Time Is Money: Decision Behavior under Opportunity-Cost Time Pressure," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 131-152, May.
    10. 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.
    11. Ordonez, Lisa & Benson, Lehman, 1997. "Decisions under Time Pressure: How Time Constraint Affects Risky Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 121-140, August.
    12. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. Gustav Tinghög & David Andersson & Caroline Bonn & Harald Böttiger & Camilla Josephson & Gustaf Lundgren & Daniel Västfjäll & Michael Kirchler & Magnus Johannesson, 2013. "Intuition and cooperation reconsidered," Nature, Nature, vol. 498(7452), pages 1-2, June.
    22. 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.
    23. 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.
    24. 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.
    25. 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.
    26. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:3:p:260-274 is not listed on IDEAS
    27. 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.
    28. Young, Diana L. & Goodie, Adam S. & Hall, Daniel B. & Wu, Eric, 2012. "Decision making under time pressure, modeled in a prospect theory framework," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 179-188.
    29. 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.
    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. Grewenig, Elisabeth & Lergetporer, Philipp & Werner, Katharina & Woessmann, Ludger, 2022. "Incentives, search engines, and the elicitation of subjective beliefs: Evidence from representative online survey experiments," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 231(1), pages 304-326.
    2. Thomas Buser & Roel van Veldhuizen & Yang Zhong, 2022. "Time Pressure Preferences," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 22-054/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    3. Syngjoo Choi & Jeongbin Kim & Eungik Lee & Jungmin Lee, 2022. "Probability Weighting and Cognitive Ability," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(7), pages 5201-5215, July.
    4. Klimm, Felix & Kocher, Martin G. & Opitz, Timm & Schudy, Simeon, 2023. "Time pressure and regret in sequential search," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 406-424.
    5. Wolff, Irenaeus, 2019. "The reliability of questionnaires in laboratory experiments: What can we do?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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).
    10. 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.
    11. 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).
    12. 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.
    13. Steven Tucker & Yilong Xu, 2024. "Motivations to speculate are the driving forces in experimental asset market bubbles," Working Papers in Economics 24/02, University of Waikato.
    14. Steven Tucker & Yilong Xu, 2020. "Nonspeculative Bubbles Revisited: Speculation Does Matter," Working Papers in Economics 20/09, University of Waikato.
    15. Banerjee, Priyodorshi & Das, Tanmoy, 2021. "Risky decision under laboratory deadline with experience and indirect self-selection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(C).
    16. Cao, Qian & Li, Jianbiao & Niu, Xiaofei, 2022. "Tempus fugit: The impact of time constraint on investor behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 67-81.

    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. Buckert, Magdalena & Oechssler, Jörg & Schwieren, Christiane, 2017. "Imitation under stress," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 252-266.
    2. 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).
    3. Niu, Xiaofei & Li, Jianbiao, 2019. "How Time Constraint Affects the Disposition Effect?," EconStor Preprints 194618, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    4. Jan Hausfeld & Sven Resnjanskij, 2017. "Risky Decisions and the Opportunity Costs of Time," TWI Research Paper Series 108, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
    5. 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..
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Klimm, Felix & Kocher, Martin G. & Opitz, Timm & Schudy, Simeon, 2023. "Time pressure and regret in sequential search," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 406-424.
    9. Achtziger, Anja & Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Wagner, Alexander K., 2018. "Social preferences and self-control," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 161-166.
    10. 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).
    11. 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.
    12. Buser, Thomas & van Veldhuizen, Roel & Zhong, Yang, 2022. "Time Pressure Preferences," Working Papers 2022:17, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    13. Banerjee, Priyodorshi & Das, Tanmoy, 2021. "Risky decision under laboratory deadline with experience and indirect self-selection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(C).
    14. Anja Achtziger & Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Alexander Ritschel, 2020. "Cognitive load in economic decisions," ECON - Working Papers 354, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    15. Leonidas Spiliopoulos & Andreas Ortmann, 2018. "The BCD of response time analysis in experimental economics," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(2), pages 383-433, June.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Emin Karagözoglu & Martin G. Kocher, 2015. "Bargaining under Time Pressure," CESifo Working Paper Series 5685, CESifo.
    19. Deck, Cary & Jahedi, Salar & Sheremeta, Roman, 2021. "On the consistency of cognitive load," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    20. 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.

    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.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Viviana Lalli (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://rationality-and-competition.de .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.