4.5 Article

Time to decide: Diurnal variations on the speed and quality of human decisions

期刊

COGNITION
卷 158, 期 -, 页码 44-55

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.007

关键词

Decision-making; Circadian rhythms; Chess; Human chronobiology

资金

  1. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas (CONICET), Universidad Nacional de Quilmes, Agencia Nacional de Promocion Cientifica y Tecnologica
  2. CONICET
  3. Microsoft Faculty Fellowship
  4. FONCyT Argentina [PICT-2013-1653]
  5. James S. McDonnell Foundation 21st Century Science Initiative in Understanding Human Cognition - Scholar Award
  6. FONCyT
  7. Universidad Nacional de Quilmes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human behavior and physiology exhibit diurnal fluctuations. These rhythms are entrained by light and social cues, with vast individual differences in the phase of entrainment - referred as an individual's chronotype - ranging in a continuum between early larks and late owls. Understanding whether decision-making in real-life situations depends on the relation between time of the day and an individual's diurnal preferences has both practical and theoretical implications. However, answering this question has remained elusive because of the difficulty of measuring precisely the quality of a decision in real-life scenarios. Here we investigate diurnal variations in decision-making as a function of an individual's chronotype capitalizing on a vast repository of human decisions: online chess servers. In a chess game, every player has to make around 40 decisions using a finite time budget and both the time and quality of each decision can be accurately determined. We found reliable diurnal rhythms in activity and decision-making policy. During the morning, players adopt a prevention focus policy (slower and more accurate decisions) which is later modified to a promotion focus (faster but less accurate decisions), without daily changes in performance. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据