When decisions are made under time pressure, individuals tend to reduce the number of hypotheses generated to explain and solve problems. This research investigates the extent to which individual differences in (a) domain-specific experience, (b) fluid intelligence, (c) need for closure (NFC), and (d) time urgency moderated the effect of time pressure on investigative hypothesis generation. Korean detectives (N = 133) participated in simulated investigative scenarios. To induce the perception of time pressure, one group was informed that the task would have to be completed under time pressure (N = 66), whereas the other group did not receive this instruction (N = 67); although both groups had the same amount of time). Outcomes included the number and quality of hypotheses generated for solving the case. The quality of hypotheses generated was measured against criteria established by expert detectives. Results revealed that time pressure directly decreased the quantity and quality of hypotheses generated. In the relationships, low time urgency moderated the effect of time pressure on the number and quality of hypotheses generated, also low NFC moderated the impact of time pressure on the number of hypotheses generated. Furthermore, the most experienced detectives were least affected by the negative association between time pressure and the quality of hypotheses generated. The findings suggest lower time urgency, lower NFC and more experience are adaptive ‘protective’ factors against the negative impact of time pressure on hypothesis generation within high stakes and uncertain situations such as rape investigations.
AlisonLBarrettECregoJ (2007) Criminal investigative decision making: Context and process. In: HoffmanRR (ed.) Expertise Out of Context: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Naturalistic Decision Making. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 79–95.
2.
AlisonLDoranBLongMPowerNHumphreyA (2013a) The effects of subjective time pressure and individual differences on hypotheses generation and action prioritization in police investigations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied19: 83–93.
3.
AlisonLvan den HeuvelCWaringSCregoJPowerNLongAO’HaraT (2013b) Immersive simulated learning environments for researching critical incidents: A knowledge synthesis of the literature and experience of studying high-risk strategic decision-making. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making7: 255–272.
4.
AskK (2006) Criminal investigation: motivation, emotion, and cognition in the processing of criminal evidence. PhD thesis, Göteborg University, Sweden.
5.
AskKGranhagPA (2005) Motivational sources of confirmation bias in a criminal investigation: the need for cognitive closure. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling2: 43–63.
6.
BarrettE (2008) Psychological research and police investigations: does the research meet the needs? In: AlisonLJ (ed.) The Forensic Psychologist’s Casebook: Psychological Profiling and Criminal Investigation. Cullompton, UK: Willan, 47–66.
7.
BhattacharjeeSKidaTHannoDM (1999) The impact of hypothesis set size on the time efficiency and accuracy of analytical review judgments. Journal of Accounting Research37: 83–100.
8.
CanterDYoungD (2009) Investigative Psychology: Offender Profiling and the Analysis of Criminal Actions. Chichester, UK: Jhon Wiley & Sons Ltd.
9.
ChirumboloALiviSMannettiLPierroAKruglanskiAW (2004) Effects of need for closure on creativity in small group interactions. European Journal of Personality18: 265–278.
CregoJAlisonL (2004) Control and legacy as functions of perceived criticality in major incidents. Journal of Investigative Psychology & Offender Profiling1: 207–225.
12.
CroskerryP (2002) Achieving quality in clinical decision making: cognitive strategies and detection of bias. Academic Emergency Medicine9: 1184–1204.
13.
DoughertyDMMathiasCWMarshDM (2003) Time paradigm (version 1.0) [Manual]. Houston, TX: Neurobehavioral Research Laboratory and Clinic, University of Texas Health Science Centre at Houston.
14.
DoughertyDMMathiasCWMarshDMJagarAA (2005) Laboratory behavioral measures of impulsivity. Behavior Research Methods37: 82–90.
15.
DoughertyMRPHunterJE (2003) Probability judgment and subadditivity: the role of working memory capacity and constraining retrieval. Memory & Cognition31: 968–982.
16.
EngleRWTuholskiSWLaughlinJEConwayA (1999) Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: a latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General128: 309–331.
17.
FahsingIAskK (2016) The making of an expert detective: the role of experience in English and Norwegian police officers’ investigative decision-making. Psychology, Crime & Law22(3): 203–223.
18.
FahsingIAskK (2018) In search of indicators of detective aptitude: police recruits’ logical reasoning and ability to generate investigative hypotheses. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology33(1): 21–34.
19.
FellowsLK (2004) The cognitive neuroscience of human decision making: a review and conceptual framework. Behavioral Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews3: 159–172.
20.
FleissJ (1981) Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions (2nd edn). New York, NY: Academic Press.
21.
FreedmanJLEdwardsDR (1988) Time pressure, task performance, and enjoyment. In: McGrathJE (ed.) The Social Psychology of Time. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, 113–133.
22.
GlomsethRGottschalkP (2009) Police personnel cultures: a comparative study of counter-terrorism and criminal investigation units. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law & Society22: 3–15.
23.
HairJFJrAndersonRETathamRLBlackWC (1995) Multivariate Data Analysis (3rd edn). New York: Macmillan.
24.
JaeggiSMBuschkuehlMJonidesJPerrigWJ (2008) Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America105(19): 6829–6833.
25.
JosephGMPatelVL (1990) Domain knowledge and hypothesis generation in diagnostic reasoning. Medical Decision Making10(1): 31–44.
26.
KaneMJEngleRW (2002) The role of prefrontal cortex in working-memory capacity, executive attention, and general fluid intelligence: an individual differences perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review9: 637–671.
27.
KleinGA (1998) Source of Power: How People Make Decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
MacquetAC (2009) Recognition within the decision-making process: a case study of expert volleyball players. Journal of Applied Sports Psychology21: 64–79.
30.
NadkarniSNarayananVK (2007) Strategic schemas, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: the moderating role of industry clock speed. Strategic Management Journal28(3): 243–270.
31.
O’HareD (1992) The ‘artful’ decision-maker: a framework model for aeronautical decision making. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology2(3): 175–191.
32.
O’NeillM (2011) What makes a successful volume crime investigator? PhD thesis, University of Portsmouth, UK.
33.
O’NeillMMilneB (2014) Success within criminal investigations: is communication still a key component? In: BullRay (ed.) Investigative Interviewing. New York, NY: Springer, 123–146.
34.
OnoMSachauDADealWPEnglertDRTaylorMD (2011) Cognitive ability, emotional intelligence, and the big five personality dimensions as predictors of criminal investigator performance. Criminal Justice and Behavior38(5): 471–491.
35.
Police Skills and Standards Organisation (2003) Identifying the Current and Future Skills Needs of the Police Sector: A Report on the Skills Foresight Programme. London: Home Office.
36.
RastegaryJLandyFJ (1993) The interactions among time urgency, uncertainty, and time pressure. In: SvensonOMauleAJ (eds) Time Pressure and Stress in Human Judgment and Decision Making. London: Plenum Press, 217–239.
37.
RavenJ (2000) The Ravens Progressive Matrices: change and stability over culture and time. Cognitive Psychology41: 1–48.
38.
RavenJRavenJCCourtJH (2003) Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
39.
RavenJCCourtJHRavenJ (1977) Standard Progressive Matrices. London: Lewis.
40.
RoetsAHielAV (2011) Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the Need for Closure Scale. Personality and Individual Differences50: 90–94.
41.
SalgadoJFAndersonNMoscosoSBertuaCDe FruytF (2003) International validity generalization of GMA and cognitive abilities: A European Community meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology56(3): 573–605.
42.
SchmidtHGBoshuizenHPA (1993) On the origin of intermediate effects in clinical case recall. Memory & Cognition21: 338–351.
43.
SheltonJTElliottEMatthewsRHillBGouvierW (2010) The relationships of working memory, secondary memory, and general fluid intelligence: working memory is special. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition36: 813–820.
44.
StelfoxP (2013) Criminal Investigation: An Introduction to Principles and Practice. Cullompton, UK: Willan.
45.
StokesAFKemperKKiteK (1997) Aeronautical decision making, cue recognition, and expertise under time pressure. In: ZsambokCEKleinG (eds) Naturalistic Decision Making. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 183–196.
46.
van den HeuvelCAlisonLCregoJ (2010) How uncertainty and accountability can derail strategic ‘save lives’ decisions in counterterrorism simulations: a descriptive model of choice deferral and omission bias. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making25: 165–187.
47.
Van HielAMervieldeI (2003) The Need for Closure and the spontaneous use of complex and simple cognitive structures. The Journal of Social Psychology14: 559–568.
48.
WeberEUBöckenholtUHiltonDJWallaceB (1993) Determinants of diagnostic hypothesis generation: effects of information, base rates, and experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition19: 1151–1164.
49.
WebsterDMKruglanskiAW (1994) Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology67(6): 1049.
50.
WesteraNKebbellMMilneBGreenT (2013) Developing the 'effective detective' of the future. (CEPS briefing paper; Vol. 2200-4149, No. 21). Nathan, Queensland: Austrailian Research Council.
51.
WrightM (2013) Homicide detectives’ intuition. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling10(2): 182–199.
52.
ZakayD (1993) The impact of time perception processes on decision making under time stress. In: SvensonOMauleAJ (eds) Time Pressure and Stress in Human Judgment and Decision Making. London, UK: Plenum Press, 59–72.
