The Effects of Time on Decision-Making
From time to time, individuals make decision either for their own selves, for others or for the society at large. Economic studies have pointed on the use of rational calculation in making decisions (Kanev & Terziey, 2017 & Stanovich 2016). Such decisions are guided by the rational choice theory, which posits that individuals are inherently self-interested and would pursue outcomes that would maximize gains using strategies that entail the minimum cost (Scott, 2000). In weighing on the various courses of action, an individual would consider the benefits and costs as well as the associated risk of taking an action over another. The decision-maker could employ mathematical methods or rely on heuristics to identify the best course of action. However, the rationality of an individual can be impaired by time such that when faced with time pressure, individuals may be unable to think over the various courses of actions and its costs and benefits and in the process, would be unable to perform rational calculation. It is often heard that in such time-constrained situations, people would rely on their guts or intuition. Studies comparing the quality of decision outputs arrived at using intuitive judgment and that of reflective thinking generate mixed results (Choi, Vaswani & Shadmehr, 2014). Given that decision situations are not always benefited with adequate timeframe within which a decision needs to be made, it is interesting to study the effect of time stress on decision-making. In this article, time shall be considered as both an input and situational variable for the decision-making process.
Theoretical Motivation
The present article is guided by the Construal Level Theory (CLT). This theory posits that time affects decision-making. It further maintains that as the individual becomes closer to the matter in need of decision, the more likely that the individual will approach the situation concretely and will rely on guts or intuition. Such situations illustrate the effect of time pressure wherein individuals are compelled to approach the situation concretely rather than in abstract terms (Ho, Ke & Liu, 2015). For example, the study of Vohs and colleagues (2014) found that students who have the luxury of a year or more to think about the degree program that they will take in college are more likely to identify all possible scenarios, draw guidance from others such as family, friends, and alumni of the possible degree programs that will be enrolled into, ascertain the cost and benefits of each program, and choose the most rational option. This illustrates the tenet of CLT that if an individual has more time or is distant from the matter in need of a decision (i.e. choosing a college program), the more likely it is for that individual to consider various factors and abstractions. In the study of Wood and Harris (2015), students considered such abstract terms as financial viability, job satisfaction, professional growth, and job-industry demand match. Simply put, CLT posits that if a person has adequate time to make a decision, she is likely to consider the question “why”.
However, the situation will be different if the person experiences time pressure. Being in a time-pressured situation, this person has closer proximity to the matter in need of decision. For example, when someone is being pursued by dogs and sees a wall at the end of the road, that person will no longer think whether an alternative scenario is possible (the why question). The person would no longer ask: “Why would I revolve my decision-making on that wall in front of me?” Instead, the person will explore the question “how” (i.e. how would I overcome the wall; by climbing or with the use of a ladder?). Because of time pressure, CLT postulates that the person is deprived of thinking over the decision situation in abstract terms. The situation needs to be approached concretely and therefore, the person should be concerned with the “how” question.
The Construal Level Theory will be employed in this article in order to guide the analysis of how time stress affects decision-making. Specifically, the article will investigate in detail decision situations in which the person has close proximity to the matter in need of decision. Not all decision situations that involve the “why” question is like climbing a wall in order to evade dogs who run astray. Some decision situations are more complex such as when firm manager is faced with a situation in which she has to issue a statement within an hour in response to a potentially devastating company news.
Time Constraint and Time Pressure
More often, the terms time constraint and time pressure are used interchangeably. However, it is possible to have time constraint without experiencing time pressure. In time constraint, the person knows of a deadline and he may finish a task on or before that deadline (Ordonez & Benson, 1997). For example, a seasoned researcher is tasked to prepare a literature review within a week. He has a time constraint since he cannot do the review beyond one week but he can, with great efficiency and expertise of literature review as well as the availability of the articles to be reviewed, accomplish the task a day or more before the deadline. In another scenario, a new researcher who just graduated from college is assigned a similar task. She has the same timeframe as the seasoned researcher but other factors such as low self-esteem and self-efficacy, pressure to perform well as a new employee and the fear of being compared can induce pressure on the researcher. The situation, therefore, converted time constraint into time pressure. The seasoned researcher experienced time constraint but no time pressure. The new researcher, on the other hand, experienced both time constraint and time pressure, with the latter a result of numerous factors.
Decision under Different Conditions: Extending CLT
It can be recalled that CLT is concerned with two decision conditions. The first one is when the person has adequate time to make decision and in the process, is able to think in abstract terms when making a decision. The second decision condition is when the person has a close proximity to the matter requiring action and therefore, a decision has to be made quickly. The CLT can be extended further such that the first decision condition may involve both having adequate time to make a decision as well as time constraint. It can be said that a person under time constraint may still be able to think in abstract terms especially if the person is competent enough to make the decision. Therefore, CLT may deal with three situations; namely: the person has sufficient time to make a decision, the person has time constraint in making a decision, and the person experiences time pressure to make the decision.
Effect of Culture on the Perception of Time
Before discussing the different decision conditions with CLT as the theoretical framework, there is a need to discuss first how time is perceived and how culture and societal norms affect its perception. This is needed considering that the determination of whether one has unlimited time to make a decision, has time constraint or time pressure depends on the culture that the person grew up with as well as the societal expectations imposed on her. It can be said that for someone to say that he has unlimited time to make a decision, that person can be said to have significant control over his social, political and economic environment.
Anthropologists have long found the difference in time perception between individualist and collectivist societies. Individualist societies such as United States, Canada and Switzerland value individual achievements and therefore, are likely to save and use time in a very efficient manner (Li, Masuda & Russell, 2015). Having an unlimited time to accomplish something may infer the lack of career planning. The person has so much time to achieve something that this person no longer has time allotment for other meaningful things. As a result, people from individualist societies tend to have time constraint in everything they do. Setting a deadline is more of a psychological tool to observe discipline and be focused on what are important. In addition to this, individuals coming from individualist societies also tend to allot more days for advanced planning than those who are from collectivist societies (Reinecke et al 3; see Figure 1). This can be explained by the fact that by planning in advance, time as a valuable resource will be maximized.
On the other hand, collectivist cultures such as East Asian countries like Japan and China are more lenient with their time management (Li, et al., 2015). People from these countries tend to have a healthy work-life balance. For example, the Japanese people, as depicted in the film Gung Ho (enthusiastic), have time to perform their morning calisthenics while the American manager (Michael Keaton) sees it as a waste of time. In the film, Keaton appears to be very preoccupied with time as he is dealing with the job pressure to convince Assan Motors Corporation to reopen the plant in Hadleyville, Pennsylvania. On the contrary, the Japanese people appear relaxed and in complete harmony with the natural order. It can be said that the explanation for this is that collectivist cultures are focused on group achievement and happiness and because of this, an individual only need to be competent at whatever he is good at to contribute in collective success. As a result, he has greater time with his family and for recreational activities.
The implication of the cultural differences in the perception of time is that people from individualist societies tend to live in fast-paced life and wasted time always entails wasted opportunities. As a result, they tend to experience time constraint and pressure more open that those who are from collectivist societies.
Decision-making under Adequate Time
CLT posits that if a person has sufficient time to make a decision, abstract reasoning and critical reflection on things that should be considered in making a decision can be undertaken. In this case, the person is capable of taking into account past experiences or past results of strategies that can be considered, present opportunities and limitations, and the potential effects of each decision in the future with particular emphasis on whether time lag is unlikely to occur that could weaken the effectiveness of possible solutions. It can be inferred that individuals with adequate time to make a decision are also those more likely to arrive at their decision with the greatest rationality.
Past experiences or previous practices are more likely to be replicated if these resulted in positive outcomes for the decision-maker. Ghattas and colleagues (2014) noted that past experiences and decisions can be considered when devising a strategic business plan. The authors, however, cautioned that the viability of previous solutions is context-dependent. A solution can be successful in the past but if this same solution is employed to address the same problem in the future, the result may be different because other factors, such as level of technology and the degree of commitment of individuals involved in implementing the change or affected by it, have already changed. What article found is that past decisions and experiences can be consolidated in a data analytics and action points that may be successful when employed at present are identified and simulated in order to see whether it can yield the same success at present conditions (Ghattas et al., 2014).
In addition to this, the consolidation of past experiences and decisions can also aid in the decision-making process. The consolidated past experiences and decisions can be readily accessed by decision-makers and base the approach to solving the present problem therefrom. Kransdorff (2017) called this consolidated past experiences and decisions as organizational memory and its use has been proven successful at improving organizational decision-making. Kransdorff advocated for the need for decision-makers to also be experiential learners. He explained that experiential learning is facilitated when past experiences and decisions are applied in current practices in order to ascertain its limitations and consequently, to improve it. In the process, decision-makers continue to grow organizationally and in the event that an adverse incident occurred, the decision-maker will have mental fortitude to confront the issue and identify the most strategic solution.
Adequate time also allows decision-makers to fully understand their present condition. They can employ basic and complex analysis of the internal and external environment, capabilities and resources before making a decision. One of the more popular tools used in making decisions based on the consideration of the present position of a person or organization is the SWOT analysis or the analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats faced by a person or organization. Sutrisno and colleagues (2016) found that the incorporation of SWOT analysis to the failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) improves the capacity of organization to identify the most appropriate corrective action to address an issue. Applying the modified FMEA tool to a case study of a gas tube production and distribution company, the authors were able to identify the most optimum corrective action, which is to strengthen the collaboration among the inspecting gate security personnel, outgoing inspection staff, and fleet drivers. This course of action received a score of 82.5 points or almost 25 percent more efficient than the next optimum course of action (Sutrisno et al., 2016). Table 1 shows the correlation of SWOT variables and the possible corrective actions. The action with the highest correlation coefficient can be said to be the most commendable since it has the greatest reflection of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the organization. It is apparent that the use of the modified FMEA-SWOT analysis is highly technical and therefore, this tool can only be applied if the decision-maker has sufficient time.
Apart from past experiences and present conditions, a decision-maker with an adequate time to make a decision can also pay attention to future events or scenarios. This can be done by the use of foresight and forecasting. Foresight is defined as the ability to detect significant events that can lead to unexpected and even detrimental effects in the future. It is different from forecasting, which predicts future events, as it is merely concerned with exploring a range of different possible scenarios and their effects. Foresight is widely employed in environmental science and climate change policy-making. Through foresight, decision-makers are able to recognize warnings of potential future opportunities and threats and use these to think of multiple future events, the consequence of these to the environment and individuals, and the courses of action that would produce the most desirable future. Examples of foresight tools are horizon scanning, a data collection and organization tools that allow decision-makers to identify themes and patterns, and scenario planning, a tool that makes use of uncertainties and trends in order to creatively visualize possible multiple future scenarios (Cook et al., 2014).
Apart from environmental planning, foresight can also be employed in business. Jissink, Huizingh and Rohrbeck (2015) found that the use corporate foresight is positively associated with three performance dimension; namely: marketability of new product, product innovation, and financial performance. Corporate foresight was able to generate such improved dimensions of performance because it allows business decision-makers to explore distant opportunities that are otherwise inconceivable using conventional thinking. Foresight enables-decision makers to foresee competitive situations and opportunities in technology, which can the led to better investment decision particularly in terms of research and development (Vecchiato, 2015).
Forecasting, on the other hand, is also more widely used in environmental and climate change planning. In the study of Dale and colleagues (2012), the researchers found that flood forecasting can aid decision-makers about infrastructural projects through the generation of probabilistic outcomes. However, the authors also noted that the utility of flood forecasting can be impaired by the difficulty of ascertaining which among the probabilistic outcomes will be adopted by policy-makers. The solution to this is the incorporation of risk-based decision-support framework that takes into account the degree of consequences of each of the probabilistic outcomes (Dale et al., 2012). It is widely known that weather forecasting has been very effective in guiding the decision-making process with regard to the cancellation of classes and works and in planning for disaster management, mitigation and prevention. The result of weather forecasts allow communities to plan and prepare ahead and thus, reducing casualties (Argyle, 2017).
The availability of tools to assess past experiences, present condition, and multiple futures can aid decision-makers and increases the likelihood that the decision taken is the most optimal in view of the available information. These tools and their effective use can only be available to individuals with adequate time to make a decision. Moreover, the use of such tools allow the decision-makers to take into account various factors such as risks and benefits, which make the decision chosen as the most rational of all the potential courses of action.
Decision-making under Time Constraint
As can be recalled from the discussion above, time constraint is different from time pressure in that a person facing a time constraint faces a deadline but may be able to complete the task even before that deadline. Another definition of time constraint is provided by Benson and Beach as cited in Gonzales (2014). They define time constraint as “the difference between the amount of available time and the amount of time required to resolve a decision task” (Gonzales, 2014). Following this definition, a medical emergency responder, therefore, has greater time constraint than an employee who is aiming for regularization. Compared with time pressure, it can also be said that time constraint is an objective condition as this can be ascertained by simply knowing the available time and deducting from it the amount of time needed to make a decision. By implication, the greater the time constraint or the shorter the difference between the available time and the needed amount of time for the decision to be made, the greater is the likelihood that a person would experience time pressure.
As an objective condition, it can be argued that in decision situations that are constrained by time, individuals may still be able to exercise rationality; although the approaches may not be as complex as those employed when the timeframe is sufficient. Instead of employing SWOT analysis, horizon scanning or scenario planning, the person experiencing time constraint would rather use heuristics or repeat previous approaches to decisions or decisions themselves.
Heuristic Decision-Making
Heuristic or heuristic techniques are practical methods employed in reaching an immediate goal (Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier, 2011). These techniques may not be optimal or logical but given the time constraint, these may be the most prudent. The use of heuristics has already received scholarly attention. For example, Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier (2011) found that organizations employ heuristic for adaptive purposes. Heuristics allow the organization to save time and resources as less time and tools and personnel will be needed to come up with a decision. Another benefit of the use of heuristics is that this reduces the likelihood of time lag or the condition wherein a solution took a significant time to be identified and by the time, it is applied, it already lost its effectiveness as the context has already changed (Lee, Leipzig & Walter, 2013).
The use of heuristic has been significantly explored in relation to political decision-making. Deciding whom to vote in the election can be said to also be under time constraint, although some candidates may have been known to the public for some time even before the election season. But for most voters, decisions have to be made under time constraint because candidates are only able to reveal and explain their plan of action during the campaign period, which usually lasts for two months. Only during campaign period are the personality and policy stances of the candidates scrutinized. Theoretically, electoral decision-making is a complex process. It requires the consideration of the current and future state of the economy and the position of the country in the global economy and politics, the performance of the candidates and past policy pronouncements, the ideology of the voter, character of the candidates, and other factors. This requires exhaustive research but because voters are deprived of the availability of all pertinent information as well as the time to undertake such exhaustive evaluation of candidates, heuristics can replace complex decision-making. Instead of evaluating the track record of the candidate, the voter would simply consider the most recent policy articulation of the candidate in consonance with the heuristic that candidates often evades controversial issues and when they do issue their political stance, they package such statement with ambiguities (Lau & Redlawsk, 2001). This, however, may not be the most logical decision as candidates, when they got elected, can always switch policy or ideological orientation. This caveat is consistent with the definition of heuristics.
Heuristic decision-making is also widely employed in the profession of engineering. Among engineers and designers, heuristics are considered as the rule of thumb. Examples of heuristics in engineering are “exploit symmetry”; “check for parity”; “consider extreme cases”, and “modify the problem” (Daly et al., 2012). The only problem with the use of heuristics in solving engineering problems is that a problem at present may be the same as those in the past but the context might have been altered. Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier (2011) also noted that the effectiveness of using heuristics in decision-making also depends on the level of expertise and experience of the person. In their study, Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier also found that heuristics are more successfully used by seasoned professionals than by novice. The explanation for this can be that heuristics are experience-based. A person, regardless of profession, can develop certain ways of doing things through many years of performing almost the same thing. As the process of doing becomes routinary, a person becomes able to simplify things or immediately identify the problem even without the benefit of exhaustive diagnostics. Mediated by the level fo experience and expertise of the person, the use of heuristics can yield quality decisions.
Repetition of Previous Decisions
Similar to heuristics, the repetition of previous decisions can also be resorted to when a person experiences time constraint. Betsch and Haberstroh (2014) reasoned in their book that part of human psychology is to stick with the conventional when facing a difficult situation such as when making a decision under time constraint. However, the study of Young and colleagues (2012) noted, based on literature review, that the repetition of previous decisions may not necessarily result in quality decision output. In their analysis, context emerged as an mediating variable for the effectiveness of repeating previous decisions. A decision which was successful in the past may not have the same success at present due to the change in context. In business, these contextual changes may take the form of the entry new industry players thus intensifying competition or the introduction by rivals of disruptive innovations.
Decision-Making under Time Stress
What have been covered thus far in this article are decision conditions where individuals can still exercise their rationality. Decision-making under sufficient time-frame tends to generate the most rational decisions because of the use of basic and advanced analytical tools which is only possible with sufficient time. Applying CLT, these decision conditions are approached by asking the question “why”. The decision-makers have the luxury to analyse critically and in abstract terms the various considerations relevant to the decision. The situation, however, would significantly change when the decision-makers become closely proximate with the matter in need of action. Instead of asking the question “why”, the decision-maker now asks the question “how”. Responding to this question under time pressure is more difficult than is the case when there is enough time for a decision to be made or the time constraint is not significantly imposing. Time pressure generates stress and stress can take the rationality of a person because stress can cloud judgment.
The first impact of stress on decision-making is that it takes away the consideration of persons whatever trainings and knowledge they have. In the 1992 experiment of Lehner and colleagues (1997), they found that the participants expose to time stress cope with it by rearranging decision procedures or completely abandoning them. As a result, the outcome of the altered decision procedures is less successful compared to the procedures to which the participants were actually trained. The result of this study further corroborates the claim that time stress can take away the rationality of an individual. Rational calculation would point to the use of the procedures to which the participants were trained in making the decision since these procedures were already proven to produce the desired results. Even with time pressure, the decision-maker should still implement these decision procedures. However, because of time pressure, the participants readily perceived that the available time is not enough for the procedures to which they were trained to be applied. They traded accuracy for the perceived higher chance of completing the task using procedures that have not yet been proven effective.
Another effect of time stress on decision-making is that it affects the tendency to take risk depending on the prospect of gain or loss. In the study of Young and colleagues (1997), they found that time stress is a positively correlated with risk-taking in conditions where the prospect of gaining is greater than losing. A negative correlation, however, was found when the situation is altered such that individuals become risk-aversive when the prospect of losing is greater (Young et al., 1997). This contingent relationship between time pressure and risk-taking behavior can be explained by the fact that when a person is under time pressure, there is a tendency to filter information and give greater weight to negative information. When the person perceives that the loss, as indicated by the negative information, is lesser than the gain, indicated by positive information, it is likely that the person will take the risk (Dambacher & Hübner, 2015). However, this study can be questioned for failing to take into account the socio-economic status, particularly educational attainment, and cognitive or professional maturity of the person in determining the positive and negative information and in assessing this information. It is possible that a less cognitively mature person would perceive positive information as negative because of the lack of prior relevant experience and therefore, this may alter the perception of the risk and consequently, the risk appetite of the person.
An interesting effect of time pressure can also be found in making social decisions. This involves striking a trade-off between personally benefitting from an arrangement or giving one’s opportunity to others. An example of social decision under time pressure is during a calamity situation in which relief goods for the affected are limited. Individuals may encounter the dilemma of claiming their share or giving it to others with the belief that there are those who need more the provision. They need to make a decision in a short span of time. The study of Chen and Krajbich (2018) found that the relationship between social decision-making and time pressure is mediated by whether the individual is pro-social or selfish. The study found that pro-social individuals become more pro-social under time pressure and less altruistic when time for decision-making is extended. In contrast, selfish individuals become pro-social when the timeframe of decision-making is extended (Chen & Krajbich, 2018; see also Figure 2).
The findings of Chen and Krajbich are also confirmed by the study of Cone and Rand on the effect of time pressure on competitively framed social dilemmas. The study opined that individuals resort to intuition when confronted by time pressure and as a result they depart from the actual rules of the game which was framed to be competitive, rather than cooperative, in the first place. By abandoning social norm compliance and relying instead on intuition, the individuals become cooperative (Cone & Rand, 2014). Figure 3 shows how the degree of collaboration is greater in a competitive context when time pressure is present. Capraro and Cococcioni (2015) took the analysis a step further. These researchers corroborated the findings of Cone and Rand that individuals tend to be altruistic and cooperative under time pressure but also observed that the tendency towards altruism and cooperation increases with experience. This study, therefore, clarified the findings of Cone and Rand. The tendency to cooperate or become altruistic is a learned tendency rather than an innate trait of humans.
However, the claim that time pressure takes away the rationality of individuals in making decisions can also be applied in analysing the results of the study described above. In the study of Chen and Krajbich, the rational thing to do is to comply with the rules of the game which are framed to make the game competitive. Individuals, therefore, abandon their selfishness in favour of cooperation. An alternative interpretation of the findings of Chen and Krajbich is based on rational choice theory. The individual might have already employed rational decision-making and found that it would be better for him to cooperate with others than accomplish the task on her own. This possibility raises the centrality of experience and personal attributes. If the person is no longer new to playing a game or being in a similar decision condition, she might take the proven course of action which might to cooperate with others. Personal attributes may also come into play such that individuals who have been reared to be self-centered would be able to ascertain that the condition is not favourable to him and because of this, it would be best to cooperate with others. In both scenarios, the claim that time pressure takes away the rationality of the person is established. Since the current article is operating under the assumption of rational choice theory, it can be asserted that time pressure leads individuals to take irrational decisions.
Conclusion
Using the Construal Level Theory (CLT) as theoretical paradigm, this article investigated the effect of time on decision-making. The greater the available time to make a decision, the more likely a person will approach the decision situation in a critical way and abstract terms. Such decisions situations are characterized either by having sufficient timeframe or by having time constraint, wherein the person can still exercise reflective thinking although in a less sophisticated way with the use of heuristics or the repetition of previous actions and decisions. On the other hand, the lesser the available time with which to make a decision, the greater is the likelihood that the decision-maker will experience time pressure and the greater is the tendency to approach the decision condition in a concrete manner. Time pressure shifts the focus of the decision-maker from responding to the question of “why” to the question of how.
The article also found that based on the review of related literature, decisions that are made under time constraint or time pressure tend to be poorer than those made under sufficient timeframe. This is because deciding with adequate time allows a person to consider past events and experiences, the present condition, and the future scenario through the use of basic or advanced analytical tools such as SWOT analysis, horizon scanning, scenario planning, corporate or environmental foresight and weather or economic forecasting. The use of these tools requires adequate time and therefore, can be said to only be available to those who have adequate time to make a decision. Because of the use of analytical tools and critical and reflective thinking, decisions made under sufficient time condition tend to be better. Time stress, on the other hand, can take away rationality and because of this, decisions made are less rationally calculated or irrational at all.
Works Cited
Argyle, E. M., Gourley, J. J., Flamig, Z. L., Hansen, T., & Manross, K. (2017). Toward a user- centered design of a weather forecasting decision-support tool. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 98(2), 373-382.
Betsch, T., & Haberstroh, S. (Eds.). (2014). The routines of decision making. Psychology Press.
Capraro, V., & Cococcioni, G. (2015). Social setting, intuition and experience in laboratory experiments interact to shape cooperative decision-making. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1811), 20150237.
Chen, F., & Krajbich, I. (2018). Biased sequential sampling underlies the effects of time pressure and delay in social decision making. Nature communications, 9(1), 3557.
Choi, J. E., Vaswani, P. A., & Shadmehr, R. (2014). Vigor of movements and the cost of time in decision making. Journal of neuroscience, 34(4), 1212-1223.
Cone, J., & Rand, D. G. (2014). Time pressure increases cooperation in competitively framed social dilemmas. PloS one, 9(12), e115756.
Cook, C. N., Inayatullah, S., Burgman, M. A., Sutherland, W. J., & Wintle, B. A. (2014). Strategic foresight: how planning for the unpredictable can improve environmental decision-making. Trends in ecology & evolution, 29(9), 531-541.
Dale, M., Wicks, J., Mylne, K., Pappenberger, F., Laeger, S., & Taylor, S. (2014). Probabilistic flood forecasting and decision-making: an innovative risk-based approach. Natural hazards, 70(1), 159-172.
Daly, S. R., Yilmaz, S., Christian, J. L., Seifert, C. M., & Gonzalez, R. (2012). Design heuristics in engineering concept generation. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 601-629.
Dambacher, M., & Hübner, R. (2015). Time pressure affects the efficiency of perceptual processing in decisions under conflict. Psychological research, 79(1), 83-94.
Ghattas, J., Soffer, P., & Peleg, M. (2014). Improving business process decision making based on past experience. Decision Support Systems, 59, 93-107.
Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual review of psychology, 62, 451-482.
Ho, C. K., Ke, W., & Liu, H. (2015). Choice decision of e-learning system: Implications from construal level theory. Information & Management, 52(2), 160-169.
Jissink, T., Huizingh, E. K., & Rohrbeck, R. (2014). Corporate foresight: antecedents and contributions to innovation performance. In ISPIM Conference Proceedings (p. 1). The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM).
Kanev, D., & Terziev, V. (2017). Behavioral economics: development, condition and perspectives. IJASOS-International E-Journal of Advances in Social Sciences, 3(8).
Kransdorff, A. (2017). Corporate DNA: Using organizational memory to improve poor decision- making. Routledge.
Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 951-971.
Lee, S. J., Leipzig, R. M., & Walter, L. C. (2013). Incorporating lag time to benefit into prevention decisions for older adults. Jama, 310(24), 2609-2610.
Lehner, P., Seyed-Solorforough, M. M., O’Connor, M. F., Sak, S., & Mullin, T. (1997). Cognitive biases and time stress in team decision making. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 27(5), 698-703.
Li, L. M. W., Masuda, T., & Russell, M. J. (2015). Culture and decision‐making: Investigating cultural variations in the E ast A sian and N orth A merican online decision‐making processes. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 18(3), 183-191.
Ordonez, L., & Benson III, L. (1997). Decisions under time pressure: How time constraint affects risky decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71(2), 121-140.
Reinecke, K., Nguyen, M. K., Bernstein, A., Näf, M., & Gajos, K. Z. (2013, February). Doodle around the world: Online scheduling behavior reflects cultural differences in time perception and group decision-making. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work(pp. 45-54). ACM.
Scott, J. (2000). Rational choice theory. Understanding contemporary society: Theories of the present, 129, 671-85.
Sutrisno, A., Kwon, H. M., Gunawan, I., Eldridge, S., & Lee, T. R. (2016). Integrating SWOT analysis into the FMEA methodology to improve corrective action decision making.
Stanovich, K. E. (2016). The comprehensive assessment of rational thinking. Educational Psychologist, 51(1), 23-34.
Vecchiato, R. (2015). Creating value through foresight: First mover advantages and strategic agility. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 101, 25-36.
Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., Schmeichel, B. J., Twenge, J. M., Nelson, N. M., & Tice, D. M. (2014). Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: a limited-resource account of decision making, self-regulation, and active initiative.
Young, D. L., Goodie, A. S., Hall, D. B., & Wu, E. (2012). Decision making under time pressure, modeled in a prospect theory framework. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 118(2), 179-188.
Wood, J. L., & Harris III, F. (2015). The effect of college selection factors on persistence: An examination of Black and Latino males in the community college. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 16(4), 511-535.
