scholarly journals Optimal dividends under Erlang(2) inter-dividend decision times with nonlinear surplus

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 20-28
Author(s):  
Fu Liqun ◽  
Wang Chuanyu ◽  
Kong Huan
Keyword(s):  
Optimal Dividends ◽  
Decision Times

scholarly journals Optimal dividends under Erlang(2) inter-dividend decision times

2018 ◽  
Vol 79 ◽  
pp. 225-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Avanzi ◽  
Vincent Tu ◽  
Bernard Wong
Keyword(s):  
Optimal Dividends ◽  
Decision Times

Disfluent, But Fast

2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (5) ◽  
pp. 346-354
Author(s):  
Štěpán Bahník
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Processing ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Processing Fluency ◽  
Retrieval Fluency ◽  
Decision Times

Abstract. Processing fluency, a metacognitive feeling of ease of cognitive processing, serves as a cue in various types of judgments. Processing fluency is sometimes evaluated by response times, with shorter response times indicating higher fluency. The present study examined existence of the opposite association; that is, it tested whether disfluency may lead to faster decision times when it serves as a strong cue in judgment. Retrieval fluency was manipulated in an experiment using previous presentation and phonological fluency by varying pronounceability of pseudowords. Participants liked easy-to-pronounce and previously presented words more. Importantly, their decisions were faster for hard-to-pronounce and easy-to-pronounce pseudowords than for pseudowords moderate in pronounceability. The results thus showed an inverted-U shaped relationship between fluency and decision times. The findings suggest that disfluency can lead to faster decision times and thus demonstrate the importance of separating different processes comprising judgment when response times are used as a measure of processing fluency.

Homography and Polysemy as Factors in Bilingual Word Recognition

1992 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denise Klein ◽  
Estelle Ann Doctor
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Lexical Decision ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Semantic Representation ◽  
Bilingual Memory ◽  
Lexical Decisions ◽  
Interlingual Homographs ◽  
Decision Times

This study reports an experiment which examines semantic representation in lexical decisions as a source of interconnection between words in bilingual memory. Lexical decision times were compared for interlingual polysemes such as HAND which share spelling and meaning in both languages, and interlingual homographs such as KIND which share spelling but not meaning. The main result was faster “response times for polysemes than for interlingual homographs. Current theories of monolingual word recognition and bilingual semantic representation are discussed, and the findings are accommodated within the model of bilingual word recognition proposed by Doctor and Klein.

Category Accessibility, Ratings of Prototypicality, and Perceptions of Managerial Role Attributes

1988 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 195-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce J. Avolio ◽  
Karl Galen Kroeck ◽  
Barry R. Nathan
Keyword(s):  
Women Students ◽  
Processing Time ◽  
Decision Time ◽  
Performance Information ◽  
Male And Female ◽  
University Employees ◽  
Managerial Role ◽  
Female Managers ◽  
Decision Times ◽  
Differential Access

The hypothesis that people have differential access (as measured by decision-processing time) to descriptive categories of what is applicable to male and female managers, who were effective or ineffective, was tested. A list of adjectives was presented sequentially on a CRT screen to 96 participants (48 men and 48 women, students and university employees), who evaluated each item as to “how characteristic” or “how uncharacteristic” the adjective was in describing a male or female effective (ineffective) manager. “How characteristic,” or rated prototypicality and decision-time were dependent measures. Analysis indicated that sex of target had little influence on either rated prototypicality or decision times when performance information was presented. Differences in correlations between decision times and prototypicality ratings varied primarily with the manipulation of effectiveness.

scholarly journals Speed, Accuracy, and the Optimal Timing of Choices

2018 ◽  
Vol 108 (12) ◽  
pp. 3651-3684 ◽  
Author(s):  
Drew Fudenberg ◽  
Philipp Strack ◽  
Tomasz Strzalecki
Keyword(s):  
Sequential Sampling ◽  
Decision Time ◽  
Optimal Timing ◽  
Drift Diffusion Model ◽  
Drift Diffusion ◽  
Prior Beliefs ◽  
Constant Cost ◽  
Speed Accuracy ◽  
Decision Times ◽  
Choice Probabilities

We model the joint distribution of choice probabilities and decision times in binary decisions as the solution to a problem of optimal sequential sampling, where the agent is uncertain of the utility of each action and pays a constant cost per unit time for gathering information. We show that choices are more likely to be correct when the agent chooses to decide quickly, provided the agent’s prior beliefs are correct. This better matches the observed correlation between decision time and choice probability than does the classical drift-diffusion model (DDM), where the agent knows the utility difference between the choices. (JEL C41, D11, D12, D83)

scholarly journals The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process

F1000Research ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 683 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Giordan ◽  
Attila Csikasz-Nagy ◽  
Andrew M. Collings ◽  
Federico Vaggi
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Decision Type ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Decision Times

BackgroundPublishing in scientific journals is one of the most important ways in which scientists disseminate research to their peers and to the wider public. Pre-publication peer review underpins this process, but peer review is subject to various criticisms and is under pressure from growth in the number of scientific publications.MethodsHere we examine an element of the editorial process ateLife, in which the Reviewing Editor usually serves as one of the referees, to see what effect this has on decision times, decision type, and the number of citations. We analysed a dataset of 8,905 research submissions toeLifesince June 2012, of which 2,750 were sent for peer review, using R and Python to perform the statistical analysis.ResultsThe Reviewing Editor serving as one of the peer reviewers results in faster decision times on average, with the time to final decision ten days faster for accepted submissions (n=1,405) and 5 days faster for papers that were rejected after peer review (n=1,099). There was no effect on whether submissions were accepted or rejected, and a very small (but significant) effect on citation rates for published articles where the Reviewing Editor served as one of the peer reviewers.ConclusionsAn important aspect ofeLife’s peer-review process is shown to be effective, given that decision times are faster when the Reviewing Editor serves as a reviewer. Other journals hoping to improve decision times could consider adopting a similar approach.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document