The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Comparison of Two Process Tracing Methods for Choice Tasks
Open accessAbstract
Process tracing methods, particularly those based on information acquisition, are becoming commonplace. Because of this, it is important to examine both the reactivity and the validity of these techniques. This research compares information acquisition behavior for choice tasks using Mouselab, a computerized process tracing tool, and Eyegaze, an eye tracking system. In an experiment using apartment selection tasks and gambles, we found significant differences contingent upon the process tracing method for 10 process tracing measures including subsequent choices. Computerized process tracing tools increase the amount of time needed to acquire information compared with eye tracking equipment. As a result, subjects using Mouselab tend to have more systematic information acquisition behavior than that observed with eye tracking equipment. Additional research is needed to explore the magnitude and consequences of these differences.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.14.2.189.16018 · Cited by 6,479
Gray, W. D., Sims, C. R., Fu, W.-T., & Schoelles, M. J. (2006) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.113.3.461 · Cited by 360
Is timely information always better? The effect of feedback frequency on decision making
Lurie, N. H., & Swaminathan, J. M. (2009) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.05.005 · Cited by 264
Duric, Z., Gray, W. D., Heishman, R., Li, F., Rosenfeld, A., Schoelles, M. J., Schunn, C., & Wechsler, H. (2002) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/jproc.2002.801449 · Cited by 185
Meißner, M., & Oll, J. (2019) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428117744882 · Cited by 131
Rational use of cognitive resources in human planning
Callaway, F., van Opheusden, B., Gul, S., Das, P., Krueger, P. M., Griffiths, T. L., & Lieder, F. (2022) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-022-01332-8 · Cited by 121
Metadata
- Authors
- Lohse, G. L., & Johnson, E. J.
- Venue
- Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1996-10
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 28-43
- ISSN
- 0749-5978 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2050247947
- Cited by
- 272
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
