Dynamic, connectionist models of decision making, such as decision field theory (Roe, Busemeyer, & Townsend, 2001), propose that the effect of context on choice arises from a series of pairwise comparisons between attributes of alternatives across time. As such, they predict that limiting the amount of time to make a decision should decrease rather than increase the size of contextual effects. This prediction was tested across four levels of time pressure on both the asymmetric dominance (Huber, Payne, & Puto, 1982) and compromise (Simonson, 1989) decoy effects in choice. Overall, results supported this prediction, with both types of decoy effects found to be larger as time pressure decreased.

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of perceived time pressure on a learning-based task called the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT). One hundred and sixty-three participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The experimental group was informed that the time allotted was typically insufficient to learn and successfully complete the task. The control group was informed that the time allotted was typically sufficient to learn and successfully complete the task. Both groups completed the IGT and performance was recorded. The major finding was that participants who were advised that the amount of time allotted was typically insufficient to complete the task performed significantly worse than those who were advised that time was typically sufficient to complete the task.

This study examined framing effects in decisions concerning public health. Tversky and Kahneman’s famous Asian Disease Problem served as experimental paradigm. Subjects chose between a sure and a risky option either presented as gains (saving lives) or as losses (dying). The amount of risk varied in terms of different probabilities. The number of affected people was either small (low need) or large (high need). Additionally, the decisions were linked to three different types of diseases (unusual infection, AIDS, leukemia). We also implemented two different time constraints during which the subjects had to give a response. Finally, we tested a within-subject design. The data analysis assuming a linear mixed effects model revealed significant effects of framing, probabilities, and need. Furthermore, the type of disease and time constraints were moderating the framing effect. Across the different diseases, framing effects were amplified when decision time was short.

In a controlled laboratory experiment we investigate whether time pressure influences voting decisions, and in particular the degree of strategic (insincere) voting. We find that participants under time constraints are more sincere when using the widely-employed Plurality Voting method. That is, time pressure might reduce strategic voting and hence misrepresentation of preferences. However, there are no effects for Approval Voting, in line with arguments that this method provides no incentives for strategic voting.

We experimentally explore the effects of time limitation on decision making. Under different time allowance conditions, subjects are presented with a queueing situation and asked to join one of the two given queues. The results can be grouped under two main categories. The first one concerns the factors driving decisions in a queueing system. Only some subjects behave consistently with rationality principles and use the relevant information efficiently. The rest of the subjects seem to adopt a simpler strategy that does not incorporate some information into their decision. The second category is related to the effects of time limitation on decision performance. A substantial proportion of the population is not affected by time limitations and shows consistent behavior throughout the treatments. On the other hand, some subjects’ performance is impaired by time limitations. More importantly, this impairment is not due to the stringency of the limitation but rather to being exposed to a time constraint.

Due to the information overload in today’s digital age, people maysometimes feel pressured to process and judge information especially fast. Inthree experiments, we examined whether time pressure increases therepetition-based truth effect — the tendency to judge repeatedlyencountered statements more likely as “true” than novelstatements. Based on the Heuristic-Systematic Model, a dual-process model in thefield of persuasion research, we expected that time pressure would boost thetruth effect by increasing reliance on processing fluency as a presumablyheuristic cue for truth, and by decreasing knowledge retrieval as a presumablyslow and systematic process that determines truth judgments. However, contraryto our expectation, time pressure did not moderate the truth effect.Importantly, this was the case for difficult statements, for which most peoplelack prior knowledge, as well as for easy statements, for which most people holdrelevant knowledge. Overall, the findings clearly speak against the conceptionof fast, fluency-based truth judgments versus slow, knowledge-based truthjudgments. In contrast, the results are compatible with a referential theory ofthe truth effect that does not distinguish between different types of truthjudgments. Instead, it assumes that truth judgments rely on the coherence oflocalized networks in people’s semantic memory, formed by both repetitionand prior knowledge.

When given a desirable item, people have a tendency to value this owned item more than an equally-desirable, unowned item. Conversely, when the endowed item is undesirable, in some circumstances people have a tendency to swap it for an equally undesirable item, a phenomenon known as the reversed endowment effect. The fact that the endowment effect can reverse for undesirable items has been taken as evidence against loss aversion being the underlying cause of the endowment effect. This study represents the first time that the reversed endowment effect has been observed for choices with real consequences. However, we find that the reversed endowment effect occurs only when participants’ ability to compare the available choice options is limited. We further show that these endowment reversals can also be induced for choices between desirable options and removed for choices between undesirable options by manipulating the expectations participants have when making a choice. Finally, we show that our data, including endowment reversals, can in principle be explained by loss aversion.

Are people more likely to (mis)interpret information so that it aligns with their ideological identity when relying on feelings compared to when engaging in analytical thinking? Or is it the other way around: Does deliberation increase the propensity to (mis)interpret information to confirm existing political views? In a behavioral experiment, participants (n = 1207, Swedish sample) assessed numerical information concerning the effects of gender quotas and immigration either under time pressure or under no time pressure. To measure trait differences in cognitive sophistication, we also collected data on numeric ability. We found clear evidence of motivated reasoning when assessing both the effects of gender quotas on companies’ financial results and the effect of refugee intake on crime rates. Subjects who prioritized equality over liberty on the labor market were 13 percentage points less likely to correctly assess numerical information depicting that companies that used gender quotas when hiring made less profit. Subjects who classified themselves as ‘Swedes’ rather than ‘World citizens’ were 14 percentage points less likely to correctly assess numerical information depicting that crime rates decreased following immigration. Time pressure did not affect the likelihood to engage in motivated reasoning, while subjects with higher numeric ability were less likely to engage in motivated reasoning when analyzing information concerning refugee intake, but more likely to engage in motivated reasoning when analyzing information regarding the effect of gender quotas. Together these results indicate that motivated reasoning is primarily driven by individual differences in analytical thinking at the trait level and not by situational factors such as time pressure, and that whether motivated reasoning is primarily driven by analysis or feelings depends on the topic at hand.