Journal of Decision Systems

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjds20

Decision making under stress: the role of

information overload, time pressure, complexity,
and uncertainty

Gloria Phillips-Wren & Monica Adya

To cite this article: Gloria Phillips-Wren & Monica Adya (2020): Decision making under stress:
the role of information overload, time pressure, complexity, and uncertainty, Journal of Decision
Systems, DOI: 10.1080/12460125.2020.1768680

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2020.1768680

Published online: 27 May 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 38

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjds20
JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS
https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2020.1768680

ARTICLE

Decision making under stress: the role of information

overload, time pressure, complexity, and uncertainty
Gloria Phillips-Wrena and Monica Adyab
a
Department of Information Systems, Law and Operations, Loyola University Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA;
b
Department of Management, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Studies of human decision making demonstrate that stress Received 25 January 2020
exacerbates risk-taking and impacts decision quality. Since Accepted 7 May 2020
most managerial decisions involve some element of stress, KEYWORDS
decision aids such as decision support systems (DSS) have Decision making; stress;
been proposed to mitigate its effects. However, existing information overload; time
research has largely attended to two key stressors, time pres- pressure; complexity;
sure and information overload. In this research, we propose that uncertainty; decision quality
for a holistic understanding of decision making under stress
(DMUS) and to improve decision support, a more inclusive set
of stressors and psychological experiences underlying stressful
decisions must be examined. This article focuses on one class of
stressors (of two identified) that we call ‘Decision Stressors’ and
define as specific to the decision problem at hand, temporal,
and moderated by individual differences. Based on
a comprehensive literature review of foundational literature,
we identify four Decision Stressors that affect decision quality:
information overload, time pressure, complexity and
uncertainty.

1. Introduction
Cognitive science recognises that ‘psychological stress exceeding certain intensity affects
the quality of decision making’ (Keinan, 1987, p. 639). Harassed decision-makers often
make riskier decisions (Lehner et al., 1997), make more cognitive errors (Baradell & Klein,
1993), use more stereotypes while making judgement (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991), and
demonstrate a greater tendency to ignore situational context during decision making
(Wickens, 2002) as compared to low-stress individuals. To mitigate these effects, numer-
ous aids have been proposed for decision making under stress (DMUS) with emphasis
placed on the use of decision support systems (DSS) (Smith et al., 1997, 2004; Sarter and
Schroeder, 2001).
Studies have shown that rapidly evolving, high gain/loss events such as disasters or
warfare should be treated as special cases of DMUS and can only be studied in-situ (Klein,
1989). These situations rely on previous training, domain-specific experience and ‘natur-
alistic decision making’ (Zsambok & Klein, 2014). The appropriate mental model was
referred to as a ‘recognition-primed’ decision model blending intuition, pattern matching

CONTACT Gloria Phillips-Wren gwren@loyola.edu

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 G. PHILLIPS-WREN AND M. ADYA

and analysis via mental simulation (Klein, 2008). In these domains, empirical studies
suggest that ‘the value of a computer-based decision aid may be most apparent under
higher stress conditions’ (Grabowski & Sanborn, 2001, p. 114) with decision aiding tailored
to a specific situation (Klein et al., 1993).
In contrast, this article focuses on stressful decision making in organisational
contexts that include a wide range of decisions in which the individual has the
autonomy to make a decision while considering the consequences of poor choices.
The American Institute of Stress (2020) calls this ‘workplace stress’ and includes
professions such as police officers within their normal duties. Managerial decisions
involve many levels of conflict (Janis & Mann, 1977) that can manifest as stress in an
individual. Stressed individuals exhibit characteristics similar to those in emergency
situations such as determining a solution too quickly (Edland & Svenson, 1993), not
examining alternatives sufficiently (Hogarth & Makridakis, 1981), and utilising over-
simplifying strategies (Van Bruggen et al., 1998) resulting in sub-optimal decision
quality.
The use of technology to aid decision making in these types of managerial
situations has typically focused on just two stressors: time pressure and informa-
tion overload (Aminilari & Pakath, 2005; Marsden et al., 2006; Maule et al., 2000;
Smith et al., 1997; Smith & Hayne, 1997). Research has shown that decision aids
can mitigate negative effects of stress under these conditions and improve deci-
sion quality. In this research, we develop a model for decision aiding under stress
that identifies specific stressors in managerial situations and addresses ways that
DSS can support DMUS. To do so, we assimilate key findings from the literature
broadly in psychology, organisational behaviour, information systems, and man-
agement to propose a model for DMUS that can guide the development and use
of decision aids such as DSS. We separate Decision Stressors from Job Stressors
and relate them to decision quality. We propose that individual differences and
decision aids can moderate the decision maker’s psychological perception of stress
and, thereby, improve decision quality. In this article, we focus specifically on
Decision Stressors only. Our primary research question is: What task factors gen-
erate stress during decision making? A general question is: How does stress affect
decision quality?
Our overall goal is to review foundational literature from psychology, information
systems, management, and organisational behaviour related to DMUS and integrate the
various studies to form a comprehensive framework that can be used to study the design
and use of decision aids in these domains. The literature is vast and disparate. Primary
literature was identified from keyword searches with specific searches in the leading
thought journals. This article focuses on one aspect of our study devoted to stressors
related to a specific decision.
Next section provides an overview of existing literature on stress, decision quality,
and the use of decision aids under DMUS and proposes that a class of stressors can
be identified that is called Decision Stressors and that can be grouped as information
overload, time pressure, complexity, and uncertainty.
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 3

2. Background
2.1. Definition of stress
Stress is a complex phenomenon that involves psychological and physiological responses of
an individual. The term is defined differently by various fields, and complicating the
description is its use in everyday vocabulary to describe emotions and feelings. In studying
stress related to technology, IS literature has generally adopted psychological perceptions
(e.g. Ahituv et al., 1998; Hwang, 1994), and proxies have been used for stress such as the
perception of time pressure (Arnold et al., 2000; Smith & Hayne, 1997). In this research, we
accept the definition of stress from the American Institute of Stress (2020) as ‘a condition or
feeling experienced when a person perceives that demands exceed the personal and social
resources the individual is able to mobilize’. Thus, stress is an individual’s perception of
demands compared to resources. The term ‘social resources’ is relevant to DMUS in manage-
rial situations since it considers the larger context of an organisation.
When responding to perceived stress, individuals attempt to actively adapt (Edwards &
Cooper, 1990; Selye, 1978), and studies have shown that individuals may not be able to
reasonably do so (Cohen et al., 1995; Edwards & Cooper, 1990; Hancock & Desmond, 2001;
Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

2.2. Definition of decision quality

Decision quality has been variously defined in different studies. In general, decision quality
can be characterised in terms of two aspects: the process of decision making (i.e. how the
decision was derived) and the outcome (i.e. goals of the decision problem) (Phillips-Wren
et al., 2009). Many authors focus on only one of these aspects such as optimal performance
on a specific task (Marsden et al., 2006; Speier et al., 1999b, 1999a). By comparison, Todd and
Benbasat (1992) defined decision quality in terms of deviation of the decision from
a normative solution that maximises value or utility. They considered both the effort required
from the decision maker and the decision alternative selected in evaluating decision quality.
Since perceived stress can affect both the process of, and outcome from decision making,
we accept this definition. It is possible to develop a single metric for decision quality using
a multi-criteria approach such as ranked attribute weights (Barron & Barrett, 1996) or the
Analytic Hierarchy Process (Phillips-Wren et al., 2009).

2.3. Impact of perceived stress on decision quality

Improved decision quality is associated with lower perceived stress (Cannon-Bowers & Salas,
1998; Janis & Mann, 1977; Keinan, 1987). Stressed decision-makers take more risks (Lehner
et al., 1997). Their performance is impaired (Ahituv et al., 1998), and they generate fewer
alternatives in the decision process because many alternatives appear less attractive under
conditions of stress (Mann & Tan, 1993; Svenson et al., 1985). Similar deleterious results are
seen for group decision making under stress (Smith et al., 1997), although this article is
focused on individuals.
Diverse explanations have been proposed for these sub-optimal behaviours under
stress. Cognitive resource theory (Vecchio, 1990) potentially explains how stress can
4 G. PHILLIPS-WREN AND M. ADYA

negatively impact cognitive processing and decision quality. Harmful effects of stress on
decision quality occur as cognitive resources are diverted to managing stress (Wallsten &
Barton, 1982) and information processing becomes distorted (Smart & Vertinsky, 1977).
The effect of these stressful experiences may result in rejection of the correct course of
action, acceptance of a wrong solution, incorrect focus on the wrong problem, delays in
decision making (Smart & Vertinsky, 1977), and inadequate utilisation of resources (Kerr &
Tindale, 2004). Under cognitive strain, decision makers seek rational solutions which may
not be accessible under the circumstances (Fiedler, 1986). They ignore crucial information,
use simplifying, often inefficient, strategies (Lehner et al., 1997; Svenson & Edland, 1987),
and ignore evidence that does not support their viewpoint (Wright, 1974).
Decision conflict theory (Janis, 1993) suggests that decision makers cope with stress by
becoming hyper-vigilant in their search for information. In this state, they frantically search for
a solution, fail to consider all alternatives, process information in a disorganised manner, and
rapidly shift among possible solutions. Furthermore, stress can interfere with a fair evaluation
of appropriateness of responses (Baumann et al., 2001). Typifying recency and availability bias
(Tversky & Kahneman, 1974), under stressful conditions, decision makers can revert to familiar
responses from prior experiences which may be inadequate for the challenging situation at
hand (Kaemph et al., 1996). Since rationality is bounded by human information processing
abilities (Simon, 1996), demands of stressful conditions are often beyond the capabilities of
human short-term memory (Smith et al., 2004). Physiological explanations (De Quervain et al.,
2000) suggest that stress can cause the release of steroids that can interfere with short-term
memory. Under such circumstances, decisions are more likely to be faulty than decisions
resulting from rational, organised decision making. In sum, a complex set of psychological and
physiological factors are found to impede judgement under stress, establishing the need for
decision aids that can effectively mitigate these deleterious behaviours.

3. Sources of perceived stress

Perceived stress impacts performance, sometimes positively and at most other times,
negatively. For professionals with decision responsibilities, this translates into detrimental
performance on decision tasks. Performance-related stress can be attributed to two
sources: job stressors and decision stressors. Job Stressors capture the current state of
the work environment that are perceived as negative and under which an individual must
make a decision (Carayon, 2009). These factors persist and form the context of decision
making. Decision Stressors, in contrast, are specific to the decision at hand, and their
manifestation mostly ends once the decision is made (Kowalski-Trakofler et al., 2003).
Decision Stressors, in this sense, do not persist extensively beyond a specific decision. This
article focuses on grouping Decision Stressors that have been identified in the literature.
Psychological literature refers to stress as interpretation by an individual (Lazurus,
1966, 1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Meichenbaum, 1977). Everly and Lating (2002,
p. 9) state that ‘the greater part of excessive stress is self-initiated and self-propagated
. . . the individual reacts to the environment in accordance with his or her interpretation of
the environmental stimuli’. To some extent then, individual personality traits and char-
acteristics such as extraversion (Swickert et al., 2002) and neuroticism (Bolger &
Zuckerman, 1995) moderate psychological effects between stressors and stress percep-
tions. Individual differences in perceptions of stress may also stem from cultural
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 5

experiences and artefacts (Furnam & Ribchester, 1995; Spradley & Phillips, 1972) as two
individuals with different cultural backgrounds may perceive the same work conditions
differentially (Kottler & Chen, 2007). Asian cultures, for instance, cope differently with
ambiguity and uncertainty (Adya, 2008) as opposed to western cultures that expect
structure and definition in the work environment (Hofstede, 1980). Individual differences
are also created by family culture and demands. Individuals with higher personal role
demands, for instance, may approach their work environment with pre-elevated levels of
stress as compared to those with lower personal role demands. To ignore individual
differences in examination of DMUS and decision support may overlook important ele-
ments of decision aid design and implementation. The sections below further elaborate
upon job and decision stressors and mediating role of individual differences.

4. Decision stressors as pre-conditions to stress

Figure 1 assimilates two aspects of research on DMUS – (a) stressors leading to stress that
impacts decision quality and (b) the moderating effect of individual factors. The model
proposes that one source of perceived stress within a managerial context is a group of decision
stressors that emerge from the specific decision constraints at hand. These stressors, if
unmitigated, can enhance perceptions of stress and thereby, impact decision quality.
Individual differences moderate psychological perceptions of stress. Consistent with existing
literature, moderation of psychological perceptions of stress can improve decision quality.

4.2. Decision stressors

As suggested earlier, decision stressors are specific and inherent to the decision environ-
ment and, unlike job stressors, do not last beyond the task at hand. Decision stressors may
manifest differently across different decision situations and dissipate once the task is
complete. Much of the IS literature has focused on decision stressors, specifically four key

Figure 1. Integrative model of the impact of decision stressors on decision quality.

6 G. PHILLIPS-WREN AND M. ADYA

stressors – information overload (e.g. Chewning & Harrel, 1990), time pressure (e.g. Mann
& Tan, 1993), decision complexity (e.g. Lerch & Harter, 2001), and uncertainty (e.g. Maule
et al., 2000). Effects of these stressors on decision making have primarily been examined in
isolation. Few studies like Marsden et al. (2006) or Rahman and De Feis (2009) have tested
interaction effects between these stressors from a decision-making perspective. More
critically, decision stressors have been examined in isolation from job stressors discussed
earlier. Most researchers in this domain have subsumed the role of job stressors on
decision making. In the next section, we review the key findings from this literature.

4.2.1. Information overload

Stress caused by information overload is found to be detrimental to decision quality
(Hahn et al., 1992; Marsden et al., 2006; Smith et al., 1997). Information overload occurs
when the decision maker receives more information than he can process for effective
decision making. A high volume of information can have the same effect as noise –
distraction, stress and errors in judgement (Klapp, 1986). Often this erroneous judgement
is accompanied by inconsistent decision making, disagreement with composite judge-
ment, and lower consensus (Chewning & Harrel, 1990). Lamb (1991) faults limitations in
human information processing capability to explain these effects. As the level of informa-
tion exceeds this capability, selective attention is used to process some information at the
expense of other, possibly, more relevant information. Information overload can have
a paralysing effect in crisis situations, making it increasingly difficult to distinguish vital
information from secondary information (Vugdelija & Aguirre, 2004). Other studies such as
those by Schultze and Vandenbosch (1998), Chewning and Harrel (1990), and Kim (1998)
have also found overload to harm decision quality, though not necessarily under condi-
tions of stress. Existing empirical evidence suggests the following propositions:

Proposition 1: Individuals perceiving high levels of information overload in a decision task

will experience greater levels of stress during decision making.

Proposition 1(a): Perceived stress caused by information overload is negatively asso-

ciated with decision quality.

4.2.2. Time pressure

In IS literature, perceived time pressure on the decision maker has been most frequently
examined as a stressor. Time pressure must be distinguished from time constraint which
does not necessarily lead to stress (Ordonez & Benson, 1997). A decision environment can
be time constrained, i.e. bound to a completion time, without this constraint causing
pressure and related stress. While perception of time pressure can positively impact the
focus required for task completion, it is most often associated with reduced decision and
performance quality (Hwang & Lin, 1999; Karau & Kelly, 1992; Kelly & McGrath, 1985;
Stokes & Raby, 1989). Decision makers experiencing stress from time pressure are found to
engage in fewer cognitive tasks (Ordonez & Benson, 1997) and process available data
erroneously. Anxious individuals transfer mental resources towards task-irrelevant infor-
mation thereby reducing efforts towards the decision task at hand (McLeod, 1996). It can,
thus, be proposed that:
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 7

Proposition 2: Individuals perceiving high levels of time pressure in a decision task will
experience greater levels of stress during decision making.

Proposition 2(a): Perceived stress caused by time pressure is negatively associated with
decision quality.

4.2.3. Complexity
A third dimension of decision stressors is the complexity of the problem as perceived by the
decision maker. Complex decision situations are ‘wicked’ (Courtney, 2001) ill-structured
problems (Simon, 1960) that have no definitive formulation, are integrated with numerous
environmental variables (Huber, 1984; Huber & McDaniel, 1986), are non-routine, and have
a unique set of characteristics compared to other complex problems (Simon, 1960). Such
complex decisions are defined by task difficulty, newness, variability, and interdependence
(Sanders & Courtney, 1985). As such complex decisions do not have a clear solution to the
problem but when a solution is found, it is consequential (Simon, 1960). Complexity is
increased by information distortion such as missing or incorrect information, and commu-
nication channel breakdown. Complexity is also increased by dynamism as constantly
changing criteria or decision environment (Phillips-Wren & Forgionne, 2002) that becomes
particularly intense when the decision maker has to make rapid, interdependent decisions
under dynamic conditions such as those associated with threat assessment (Kowalski-
Trakofler et al., 2003).
Executive decisions are inherently complex and dynamic since decision makers need
more than minimal information, layered advice, fast conflict resolution, and integration
between decisions and tactical plans to make rapid decisions (Eisenhardt, 1989).
Increase in decision complexity is found to correspond with decrease in performance
(Carley & Zhiang, 1997). Under such situations, decision makers choose satisfactory but
suboptimal alternatives (Payne et al., 1993) thereby lowering decision accuracy.
Complexity resulting from diverse quality and quantity of information is also found to
lower decision accuracy and increase time to decision making (Iselin, 1988).
Interruptions, a natural occurrence in complex decision settings, are found to lower
performance for complex tasks more than for simple tasks (Speier et al., 1999a). Based
on the literature, we then propose:

Proposition 3: Individuals perceiving higher levels of decision task complexity will experi-
ence greater levels of stress during decision making.

Proposition 3(a): Perceived stress caused by decision task complexity is negatively

associated with decision quality.

4.2.4. Uncertainty and risk

Uncertainty, defined as an inadequate availability of knowledge about a situation requiring
action or resolution, has been viewed by some researchers as a key determinant of stress
(McGrath, 1976; Schuler & Jackson, 1986). Stress is recognised to be a perceived state
involving uncertainty about something significant (Schuler, 1980). When tied in with riski-
ness of outcomes for high gain/loss situations, uncertainty can be reformulated into stress
associated with lack of knowledge about outcomes, significance of outcomes, and duration
8 G. PHILLIPS-WREN AND M. ADYA

of outcomes (Beehr & Bhagat, 1985). From this perspective, uncertainty-related stress is
gaining greater acceptance among organisational researchers (Schuler & Jackson, 1986).
Uncertainty is known to negatively impact a decision maker’s ability to process data
and information in a decision situation (Simon, 1990; Landsbergen et al., 1997; Nutt, 1990),
while uncertainty reduction strategies are associated with improved performance (Field
et al., 2006). Uncertainty creates fear and/or indecisiveness (Covey et al., 1994) and causes
bias that interferes with rational decision making (Hey, 1993). It modifies the decision
maker’s deliberation process so that, under a short time frame, the most prominent
dimension will tend to be processed (Busemeyer & Townsend, 1993) at the cost of
other contributory factors, and decision makers may postpone action until more is
known about the situation even when doing so results in a poor decision outcome
(Pomerol, 2001). When faced with irreducible levels of uncertainty, decision makers
often use their or other’s expert judgement and simplifying heuristics (Mahan et al.,
1999). Hey et al. (2008) confirmed that subjects simplify in uncertain situations instead
of using more sophisticated decision rules. Based on these findings, we propose:

Proposition 4: Individuals perceiving greater levels of uncertainty pertaining to the

decision task will experience greater levels of stress during decision making.

Proposition 4(a): Perceived Stress caused by situational uncertainty negatively associated

with decision quality.

6. Implications for research

The focus of our discussion in this paper has been the individual, i.e. examining the causes
and manifestation of stress from the perspective of the individual decision maker. To this
end, all propositions suggested in this paper can provide a foundation for further work in
DMUS.
Although longitudinal studies are desirable in this domain, the proposed model can be
examined in its entirety using survey-based methods. Such methods can leverage
a plethora of validated instruments available in existing literature, both in the domain of
decision stressors and job stressors. In the previous research (Adya & Phillips-Wren, 2019),
we provided measures available to researchers interested in operationalising this study.

7. Contributions and conclusions

While prior research initiatives have provided deep understanding of particular aspects of
decision support technology and have explored specific benefits to decision making
under, for example, time pressure, we propose a broader framework that focuses on
multiple gains from decision aids: reduction of negative psychological experiences of high
gain/loss, time pressure, information overload, complexity, and uncertainty, as well as
improving decision quality. In this paper, we explored the task factors that result in
perceived stress for the decision maker. The contributions of this paper include:

(1) providing a review and synthesis of the foundational literature on decision making
under stress related to task factors;
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 9

(2) proposing an integrated model based on the literature that identifies a new class of
Decision Stressors that result in perceived stress as moderated by individual
differences;
(3) suggesting future research directions in decision making under stress.

We suggest that decision aids can be specifically designed to mitigate the negative
effects of stress on human decision making in terms of the variables we have identified,
and that this is a fruitful area of future research.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Adya, M. (2008). Women at work: Individual and cultural differences in IT career experiences and
perceptions between South Asian and American Women. Human Resource Management, 47(3),
601–635. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20234
Adya, M., & Phillips-Wren, G. (2019, November). Stressed decision makers and use of decision aids:
A literature review and conceptual model. Information Technology & People, 33(2), 710–
754. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-04-2019-0194.
Ahituv, N., Igbaria, M., & Sella, A. (1998). The effects of time pressure and completeness of informa-
tion on decision making. Journal of Management Information System, 15(2), Fall, 153–172. https://
doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1998.11518212
American Institute of Stress. 2020. Stress, definition of stress, stressor, what is stress? Eustress.
Retrieved August 9, 2011, from. http://www.stress.org/topic-definition-stress.htm
Aminilari, M., & Pakath, R. (2005, November). Searching for information in a time pressured setting:
Experiences with a text-based and an image-based decision support system. Decision Support
Systems, 41(1), 37–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2004.02.005
Arnold, V., Sutton, S.G., Hayne, S.C., & Smith, C.A.P. (2000). Group decision making: The impact of
opportunity: Cost time pressure and group support systems. Behavioral Research in Accounting,
12(1), 69–97.
Baradell, J., & Klein, K. (1993, February). Relationship of life stress and body consciousness to
hypervigilant decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(2), 267–273.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.2.267
Barron, F.H., & Barrett, B.E. (1996). Decision quality using ranked attribute weights. Management
Science, 42(11), 1515–1525. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.42.11.1515
Baumann, M.R., Sniezek, J.A., & Buerkle, C.A. (2001). Self evaluation, stress, and performance:
A model of decision making under acute stress. In E. Salas & G. Klein (Eds.), Linking expertise
and naturalistic decision making (pp. 139–159). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Beehr, T.A., & Bhagat, R.S. (Eds). (1985). Human stress and cognition in organizations: An integrated
perspective. John Wiley and Sons.
Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995, November). A framework for studying personality in the stress
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 890–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.69.5.890
Busemeyer, J., & Townsend, J. (1993, July). Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to
decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review, 100(3), 432–459. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.432
Cannon-Bowers, J., & Salas, E. (Eds.). (1998). Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual
and team training. American Psychological Association.
10 G. PHILLIPS-WREN AND M. ADYA

Carayon, P. (2009). The balance theory and the work system model . . . Twenty years later.
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 25 (5), 313–327. June-July. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10447310902864928
Carley, K.M., & Zhiang, L. (1997, July). A theoretical study of organizational performance under
information distortion. Management Science, 43(7), 976–997. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.43.7.976
Chewning, E.C., & Harrel, A.M. (1990). The effect of information load on decision makers’ cue
utilization levels and decision quality in a financial distress decision task. Accounting,
Organizations, and Society, 15(6), 527–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(90)90033-Q
Cohen, S., Kessler, R.C., & Gordon, L.U. (1995). Measuring stress: A guide for health and social scientists.
Oxford University Press.
Courtney, J.F. (2001). Decision making and knowledge management in inquiring organizations:
Towards a new decision-making paradigm for DSS. Decision Support Systems, 31(1), 17–38.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(00)00117-2
Covey, S.R., Merrill, R.A., & Merrill, R.R. (1994). First things first. Simon and Schuster.
de Quervain, D.J.F., Roozendaal, B., Nitsch, R.M., McGaugh, J.L., & Hock, C. (2000). Acute cortisone
administration impairs retrieval of long-term declarative memory in healthy human subjects.
Nature Neuroscience, 3(4), 313–314. https://doi.org/10.1038/73873
Edland, A., & Svenson, O. (1993). Judgment and decision making under time pressure: Studies and
findings. In O. Svenson & A. J. Maula (Eds.), Time pressure and stress in human judgment and
decision making (pp. 27–40). Plenum Press.
Edwards, J.R., & Cooper, C. (1990, July). The person-environment fit approach to job stress: Recurring
problems and some suggested solutions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11(4), 293–307.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030110405
Eisenhardt, K. (1989, September). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments.
Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 543–576. https://doi.org/10.5465/256434
Everly, G., & Lating, J. (2002). A clinical guide to the treatment of the human stress response (2nd ed.).
Springer.
Fiedler, F. E. (1986). The contribution of cognitive resources to leadership performance. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 16(6), 532–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1986.tb01157.x
Field, J., Ritzman, L., Safizadeh, M., & Downing, C. (2006). Uncertainty reduction approaches,
uncertainty coping approaches, and process performance in financial services. Decision
Sciences, 37(2), 149–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2006.00120.x
Furnam, A., & Ribchester, T. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the concept, its measurement, and
applications. Current Psychology, 14(3), 179–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686907
Gilbert, D.T., & Hixon, J.G. (1991). The trouble of thinking: Activation and application of stereotypic
beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4), 509–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.60.4.509
Grabowski, M., & Sanborn, S. (2001, March). Evaluation of embedded intelligent real-time systems.
Decision Sciences, 32(1), 95–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2001.tb00954.x
Hahn, M., Lawson, R., & Lee, Y.G. (1992). The effect of time pressure and information load on decision
quality. Psychology and Marketing, 9 (5), 365–379. September-October. https://doi.org/10.1002/
mar.4220090503
Hancock, P.A., & Desmond, P.A. (2001). Stress, workload, and fatigue. Erlbaum.
Hey, J. (1993, January). Dynamic decision making under uncertainty: An experimental study of the
dynamic competitive firm. Oxford Economic Papers, 45(1), 58–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxford
journals.oep.a042084
Hey, J., Lotito, G., & Maffioletti, A. 2008. The descriptive and predictive adequacy of theories of decision
making under uncertainty/ambiguity (Discussion Papers in Economics, 2008/04). York, U.K:
University of York.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values. SAGE.
Hogarth, R.M., & Makridakis, S. (1981, January). The value of decision making in a complex environment: An
experimental approach. Management Science, 27(1), 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.27.1.93
Huber, G.P. (1984). The nature and design of post-industrial organizations. Management Science, 30
(8), 928–951. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.8.928
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 11

Huber, G.P., & McDaniel, R. (1986). Effects of decision processes and structures. In R. M. Lee, A. McCosh,
& P. Migliarese (Eds.), Organizational decision support systems (pp. 317–333). North Holland.
Hwang, M., & Lin, J.W. (1999, June). Information dimension, information overload, and decision
quality. Journal of Information Science, 25(3), 213–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/
016555159902500305
Hwang, M.I. (1994). Decision making under time pressure: A model for information systems research.
Information & Management, 27(4), 197–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-7206(94)90048-5
Iselin, E.R. (1988). The impact of information load and information diversity on decision quality in
a structured decision task. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 13(2), 147–163. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0361-3682(88)90041-4
Janis, I., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commit-
ment. Free Press.
Janis, I.L. (1993). Decision making under stress. In L. Goldberg & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress:
Theoretical and clinical aspects (2nd ed., pp. 69–88). Free Press.
Kaemph, G.L., Klein, G.A., Thorsden, M.L., & Wolf, S. (1996, June). Decision making in complex naval
command and control environments. Human Factors, 38(2), 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/
001872089606380204
Karau, S.J., & Kelly, J.R. (1992). The effects of time scarcity and time abundance on group perfor-
mance quality and interaction process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(6), 523–541.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(92)90045-L
Keinan, G. (1987). Decision making under stress: Scanning of alternatives under controllable and
uncontrollable threats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 639–644. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.639
Kelly, J.R., & McGrath, J.R. (1985, August). Effects of time limits and task types on task performance
and interaction of four-person groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(2),
395–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.2.395
Kerr, N.L., & Tindale, R.S. (2004, February). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review
of Psychology, 55(1), 623–655. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142009
Kim, S.L. 1998. Measuring the impact on work performance of collaborative engineering teams.
American society for information science (ASIS) Midyear proceedings, May 17-20. Orlando, FL.
Klapp, O.E. (1986). Essays on the quality of life in the information society. Greenwood Press.
Klein, G. (1989). Recognition-primed decisions. In V. W. Rouse (Ed.), Advances in man-machine system
research (pp. 47–92). JAI Press.
Klein, G. (2008). Naturalistic decision making. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society, 50(3), 456–460. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X288385
Klein, G., Orasanu, J., Calderwood, R., & Zsambok, C. (Eds.). (1993). Decision making in action: Models
and methods. Ablex.
Kottler, J., & Chen, D. (2007). Stress management and prevention: Applications to daily life. Brooks Cole.
Kowalski-Trakofler, K., Vaught, C., & Scharf, T. (2003). Judgment and decision making under stress: An
overview for emergency managers. International Journal of Emergency Management, 1(3),
278–289. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEM.2003.003297
Lamb, M. (1991, January). Attention in humans and animals: Is there a capacity limitation at the time
of encoding? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 17(1), 45–54. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.17.1.45
Landsbergen, D., Coursey, D.H., Loveless, S., & Shangraw, R.F. (1997). Decision quality, confidence,
and commitment with expert systems: An experimental study. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 7(1), 131–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024336
Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw Hill.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Cognition and motivation in emotion. American Psychologist, 46(4), 352–367.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.4.352
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.
Lehner, P., Seyed-Solorforough, M.M., O’Connor, M.F., Sak, S., & Mullin, T. (1997, September). 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. https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.618269
12 G. PHILLIPS-WREN AND M. ADYA

Lerch, F.J., & Harter, D.E. (2001, March). Cognitive support for real-time dynamic decision-making.
Information Systems Research, 12(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.12.1.63.9717
Mahan, R.P., Marino, C.J., Elliott, L., Haarbauer, E., & Dunwoody, P. 1999. Countermeasures against
stress: Dynamic cognitive induction. Proceedings of 8th international conference on human-
computer interaction, Munich, Germany, 691–695.
Mann, L., & Tan, C. (1993, December). The hassled decision maker: The effects of perceived time
pressure on information processing in decision making. Australian Journal of Management, 18(2),
197–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/031289629301800204
Marsden, J.R., Pakath, R., & Wibowo, K. (2006, October). Decision making under time pressure with
different information sources and performance-based financial incentives: Part 3. Decision
Support Systems, 42(1), 186–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2004.09.013
Maule, A., Hockey, G., & Bdzola, L. (2000, June). Effects of time pressure on decision-making under
uncertainty: Changes in affective state and information processing strategy. Acta Psychologica,
104(3), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(00)00033-0
McGrath, J.E. (1976). Stress and behavior in organizations. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1350). Rand McNally.
McLeod, P.L. (1996). New communication technologies for group decision making: Toward and
integrative framework. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision
making (pp. 426–461). Sage Publications.
Meichenbaum, D.H. (1977). Cognitive-behavior modification: An integrative approach. Plenum Press.
Nutt, P.C. (1990). Making tough decisions: Tactics for improving managerial decision-making. Jossey-
Bass Publishers.
Ordonez, L., & Benson, L. (1997). Decisions under time pressure: How time constraint affects risky
decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71(2), 121–140. https://
doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2717
Payne, J.W., Johnson, E.J., Bettman, J.R., & Coupey, E. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge
University Press.
Phillips-Wren, G., & Forgionne, G. (2002). Advanced decision making support using intelligent agent
technology. Journal of Decision Systems, 11(2), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.3166/jds.11.165-184
Phillips-Wren, G., Mora, M., Forgionne, G., & Gupta, J. (2009). An integrative evaluation framework for
intelligent decision support systems. European Journal of Operations Research, 195(3), 642–652.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.11.001
Pomerol, J.C. (2001, June). Scenario development and practical decision making under uncertainty.
Decision Support Systems, 31(2), 197–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(00)00131-7
Rahman, N., & De Feis, G. (2009). Strategic decision-making: Models and methods in the face of
complexity and time pressure. Journal of General Management, 35(2), Winter, 43–59. https://doi.
org/10.1177/030630700903500204
Sanders, G.L., & Courtney, J.F. (1985). A field study of organizational factors influencing DSS success.
Management Information Systems Quarterly, 9(1), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.2307/249275
Sarter, N. B., & Schroeder, B. (2001). Supporting decision making and action selection under time
pressure and uncertainty: The case of in-flight icing. Human Factors, 43(4), 573–583. https://doi.
org/10.1518/001872001775870403
Schuler, R. (1980, April). Definition and conceptualization of stress in organizations. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 25(2), 184–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(80)90063-X
Schuler, R.S., & Jackson, S.E. (1986). Managing stress through HRM practices: An uncertainty inter-
pretation. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources
management – Vol. 4 (pp. 183–224). JAI Press.
Schultze, U., & Vandenbosch, B. (1998). Information overload in a groupware environment: Now you
see it, now you don’t. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 8(2),
127–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327744joce0802_3
Selye, H. (1978). The stress of life (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Simon, H. A. (1960). The new science of management decision. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
https://doi.org/10.1037/13978-000
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 13

Simon, H.A. (1990). Bounded rationality.In: Eatwell J., Milgate M., Newman P. (eds) Utility and
Probability. London: The New Palgrave, Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-
20568-4_5
Simon, H.A. (1996). The science of the artificial (3rd ed.). MIT Press.
Smart, C., & Vertinsky, I. (1977, December). Designs for crisis decision units. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 22(4), 640–657. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392406
Smith, C.A.P., Arnold, V., & Sutton, S.G. (1997, July). The impact of time pressure on decision making
for choice and judgment tasks: Implications for audit planning. Accounting and Business Review, 4
(2), 365–383.
Smith, C.A.P., & Hayne, S. (1997, August). Decision making under time pressure. Management
Communication Quarterly, 11(1), 97–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318997111005
Smith, C.A.P., Johnston, J., & Paris, C. (2004). Decision support for air warfare: Detection of deceptive
threats. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13(2), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:GRUP.
0000021842.15906.94
Speier, C., Valacich, J.S., & Vessey, I. (1999b, March). The influence of task interruption on individual
decision making: An informative overload perspective. Decision Sciences, 30(2), 337–360.
Speier, C., Vessey, L., & Valacich, J.S. (1999a). Information overload through interruptions: An
empirical examination of decision making. Decision Sciences, 30(2), 337–360. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1540-5915.1999.tb01613.x
Spradley, J.P., & Phillips, M. (1972, June). Culture and stress: A qualitative analysis. American
Anthropologist, 74(3), 518–529. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1972.74.3.02a00190
Stokes, A., & Raby, M. (1989). Stress and cognitive performance in trainee pilots. Proceedings of the
human factors society 33rd annual meeting, pp. 883–887. Denver, CO.
Svenson, O., Edland, A., & Karlsson, G. 1985. The effect of numerical and verbal information and time
stress on judgments of the attractiveness of decision alternatives. In L. B. Methlie & R. H. Sprague
Jr. (Eds.), Knowledge representation for decision support systems, Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.3
Working Conference, Durham, UK. 133–144.
Svenson, O., & Edland, A. (1987, December). Change of preferences under time pressure: Choices
and judgments. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 29(4), 322–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1467-9450.1987.tb00769.x
Swickert, R.J., Rosentreter, C.J., Hittner, J.B., & Mushrush, J.E. (2002, April). Extraversion, social
support, and stress. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(5), 877–891. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0191-8869(01)00093-9
Todd, P., & Benbasat, I. (1992). The use of information in decision making: An experimental
investigation of the impact of computer-based decision aids. Management Information Systems
Quarterly, 16(3), 373–393. https://doi.org/10.2307/249534
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974, September). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.
Science, 185(4), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
van Bruggen, G.H., Smidts, A., & Wierenga, B. (1998, May). Improving decision making by means of
a marketing support system. Management Science, 44(5), 645–658. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.
44.5.645
Vecchio, R. (1990, April). Theoretical and empirical examination of cognitive resource theory. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.141
Vugdelija, J., & Aguirre, J. (2004, September). Flood warning (Power plant information overload).
Modern Power Systems, 24(9), 25–30. http://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=
getRecordDetail&idt=16211083
Wallsten, T.S., & Barton, C. (1982). Processing probabilistic multi-dimensional information for
decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 8(5), 361–384.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.8.5.361
Wickens, C. (2002). Situation awareness and workload in aviation. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 11(4), 128–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00184
Wright, P. (1974, October). The harassed decision maker: Time pressures, distractions, and the use of
evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(5), 555–561. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037186
Zsambok, C., & Klein, G. (eds.). (2014). Naturalistic decision making. Psychology Press.