Behavioral routines in decision making: the effects of novelty in task presentation and time pressure on routine maintenance and deviation

Abstract

This article examines the role of behavioral routines in decision making. In order to induce routines, participants were confronted with recurrent route decisions in a computer-controlled trucking game, which allows for manipulation of routine acquisition and strength. During the ®nal round of the game, time pressure and novelty in task presentation were varied as between-factors. It was hypothesized that time pressure would increase the likelihood of routine maintenance and novelty would increase the likelihood of deviation. Besides individual choices, response latencies and self-reports were additionally assessed to measure the amount of deliberation during decision making. Results show that time pressure strongly increased the probability of routine maintenance, even though the situation indicated the inadequacy of the routine. In contrast, novelty in task presentation provoked routine deviation and increased deliberation, as evident from response latencies and self-reports. # 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Most of the situations in which we are commonly involved oer multiple means for goal attainment. Sometimes the option set is so immense that one could not make use of each and every alternative during a lifetime. For example, there are more restaurants than you could ever visit, and more surgeons than you could ever consult. This variety of alternatives suggests a high probability for variations in behavior, although everyday experience shows that variability is far more pronounced between, rather than within individuals. Particularly in recurrent choice, behavior variability decreases in individuals if the preferred option is reinforced continuously (e.g. Hull, 1943). Thus, it is hardly surprising that research from dierent domains has accumulated evidence for past behavior to be a powerful predictor of future courses of action (e.g.

The cognitive miser's perspective: Social comparison as a heuristic in self-judgements

“…Alternatively, people act automatically (e.g., Bargh, Chen, & Burrows, 1996;Jonas & Sassenberg, 2006), based on habits (e.g., Aarts & Dijksterhuis, 2000;Verplanken & Aarts, 1999;Verplanken, Aarts, van Knippenberg, & van Knippenberg, 1994), or initiated by non-conscious goals and implicit motivation (Custers & Aarts, 2005;Veltkamp, Aarts, & Custers, 2009). Not surprisingly, people are especially likely to resort to routines or habits under suboptimal conditions (Betsch, Fiedler, & Brinkmann, 1998).…”

Has the World Changed? My Neighbor Might Know: Effects of Social Context on Routine Deviation

“…Specifically, observers might consider the hypothesis that the situation is novel ("world has changed"). Perceived novelty is one important factor fostering routine deviation (Betsch et al, 1998(Betsch et al, , 2001. Discrepant behaviors in models may serve as a cue for novelty.…”

“…Betsch et al, 1998). Six participants failed to gain 250 points within 100 trials (see result section).…”

“…Cues indicating novelty have a powerful impact on routine choice. They encourage the consideration of alternatives and, eventually, routine deviation (Betsch et al, 1998(Betsch et al, , 2001). If such a conflict is present -or if at least the decision makers cannot exclude this possibility -they must decide on two levels.…”

The Association between Routinization and Cognitive Resources in Later Life

“…Thus, routines and habits may seem very similar. According to Betsch, Fiedler, and Brinkmann (1998), a routine is "a behavioral option that comes to mind as a solution when the decision-maker is confronted with a certain decision problem" (p. 862), while a habit is considered as a special case of routine, given that routines do not necessarily require a personal or repetitive experience of the behaviors Routines and habits are necessary to good adaptation, and the absence of habits requires controlled choices and behaviors (Verplanken, 2006). A major characteristic of habits is that their occurrence is automatized, so they can easily occur in parallel with other behaviors (Aarts & Dijksterhuis, 2000).…”