Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An empirical probability-based strategy model for individual decision-making under time pressure when rescheduling daily activities

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Generally, during the execution of the daily activity schedule, there is a mismatch between the plan and the reality. Faced with unexpected events, which affect the schedule, individuals need to reschedule their activities. In such situations, time is a crucial factor when rescheduling, as people feel time pressure because of the time constraints. Consequently, the rescheduling decision is made under the individual’s perceived time pressure (\({\varvec{P}\!\varvec{T}\!\varvec{P}}\)). \({\varvec{P}\!\varvec{T}\!\varvec{P}}\) does depend on not only the actual time pressure but also the individual’s characteristics. This paper aims to establish a model to simulate the individual decision behavior under \({\varvec{P}\!\varvec{T}\!\varvec{P}}\). Under different levels of \({\varvec{P}\!\varvec{T}\!\varvec{P}}\), individuals will choose different strategies to make the final decision based on their own characteristics. Our model proposes three decision strategies: optimal strategy under low-level \({\varvec{P}\!\varvec{T}\!\varvec{P}}\), salient strategy under medium-level \({\varvec{P}\!\varvec{T}\!\varvec{P}}\), and experience under high-level \({\varvec{P}\!\varvec{T}\!\varvec{P}}\). In addition, this paper argues that the choice probabilities within each strategy are affected by the empirical probabilities. The proposed strategy model for individuals’ rescheduling choices under \({\varvec{P}\!\varvec{T}\!\varvec{P}}\) is validated by running several experiments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

This paper does not involve any data or material.

Code availability

There is no code for this manuscript.

References

  1. Rastegary H, Landy FJ (1993) The interactions among time urgency, uncertainty, and time pressure. In: Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making, pp 217–239. Springer

  2. Crescenzi AMC (2019) Adaptation in information search and decision-making under time pressure. PhD thesis, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

  3. Batool T (2016) Time pressure and flexibility in daily agendas. Master’s thesis, UHasselt

  4. Saleem R, Shah SAUH, Waqas M (2011) Effect of time pressure and human judgment on decision making in three public sector organizations of Pakistan. J Human Sci 8(1):701–712

    Google Scholar 

  5. Stern E (1999) Reactions to congestion under time pressure. Transport Res C Emerg Technol 7(2–3):75–90

  6. Jinkyu J, Lee I, Kim J (2017) The effects of hover interface on users’ behavioral multitasking intention. Int J Human Comput Interact 33:537–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen C, Chorus C, Molin E, Van Wee B (2016) Effects of task complexity and time pressure on activity-travel choices: heteroscedastic logit model and activity-travel simulator experiment. Transportation 43(3):455–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhao H, Mualla Y, Tchappi IH, Galland S, Bellemans T, Yasar A (2020) Decision-making under time pressure when rescheduling daily activities. Proc Comput Sci 170:281–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sealy WI, Feigh KM (2020) Information modification for time-limited decision making. In: 2020 IEEE international conference on human-machine systems (ICHMS), pp 1–6. IEEE

  10. Sealy WI, Feigh KM (2021) Impact of missing information and strategy on decision making performance. In: 2021 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics (SMC), pp 3140–3145. IEEE

  11. Higgins CD, Sweet MN, Kanaroglou PS (2018) All minutes are not equal: travel time and the effects of congestion on commute satisfaction in Canadian cities. Transportation 45(5):1249–1268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Phillips-Wren G, Adya M (2020) Decision making under stress: the role of information overload, time pressure, complexity, and uncertainty. J Decision Syst 1–13

  13. Kelly JR, Karau SJ (1999) Group decision making: the effects of initial preferences and time pressure. Personal Social Psychol Bullet 25(11):1342–1354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ibanez M, Czermak S, Sutter M (2009) Searching for a better deal-on the influence of group decision making, time pressure and gender on search behavior. J Econ Psychol 30(1):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. De Dreu CK (2003) Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 91(2):280–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Noh S, Gmytrasiewicz PJ (2005) Flexible multi-agent decision making under time pressure. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Humans 35(5):697–707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tchappi IH, Galland S, Kamla VC, Kamgang J-C, Nono CMS, Zhao H (2019) Holonification model for a multilevel agent-based system. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 23(5–6):633–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tchappi IH, Galland S, Kamla VC, Kamgang JC (2018) Holonification of road traffic based on graph theory. In: International conference on cellular automata, pp 513–525. Springer

  19. Najjar A, Mualla Y, Boissier O, Picard G (2017) AQUAMan: QoE-driven cost-aware mechanism for SaaS acceptability rate adaptation. In: International conference on web intelligence, pp 331–339. ACM

  20. Rai VK, Mahanty B (2002) Dynamics of schedule pressure in software projects. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference of the system dynamics Society, the system dynamics society, Palermo

  21. Mualla Y, Najjar A, Vanet R, Boissier O, Galland S (2018) Towards a real-time mitigation of high temperature while drilling using a multi-agent system. In: RTcMAS@IJCAI, pp 77–92

  22. Mualla Y, Najjar A, Boissier O, Galland S, Haman IT, Vanet R (2019) A cyber-physical system for semi-autonomous oil  & gas drilling operations. In: 3rd IEEE international conference on robotic computing (IRC), pp 514–519. IEEE

  23. Lerch FJ, Harter DE (2001) Cognitive support for real-time dynamic decision making. Inf Syst Res 12(1):63–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lau RY, Tang M, Wong O (2004) Towards genetically optimised responsive negotiation agents. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on intelligent agent technology, 2004 (IAT 2004), pp 295–301. IEEE

  25. Busemeyer JR, Townsend JT (1993) Decision field theory: a dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychol Rev 100(3):432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pfannkuch M, Ziedins I (2014) A modelling perspective on probability. Probabilistic thinking: presenting plural perspectives, pp 101–116

  27. Zhao H, Galland S, Knapen L, Bellemans T et al (2018) Agent-based dynamic rescheduling of daily activities. Proc Comput Sci 130:979–984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Goodwin P (2015) When simple alternatives to Bayes formula work well: reducing the cognitive load when updating probability forecasts. J Bus Res 68(8):1686–1691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Timmermans H, Arentze T, Joh C-H (2001) Modeling effects of anticipated time pressure on execution of activity programs. Transp Res Rec 1752(1):8–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ortega J, Hamadneh J, Esztergár-Kiss D, Tóth J (2020) Simulation of the daily activity plans of travelers using the park-and-ride system and autonomous vehicles: work and shopping trip purposes. Appl Sci 10(8):2912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Zhao H (2020) Agent-based model for the rescheduling of individual and collective daily activities under uncertainties. PhD thesis, Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté

  32. Lee S, Jin Y, Woo S et al (2013) Approximate cost estimating model of eco-type trade for river facility construction using case-based reasoning and genetic algorithms. KSCE J Civil Eng 17(2):292–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Cheng Y, Li Y, Yang J (2020) Novel approach of obtaining dynamic multi-attribute weight for intuitionistic fuzzy environment based on fractional integrals. Int J Fuzzy Syst 22(1):242–256

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  34. Gärling T, Gillholm R, Montgomery W (1999) The role of anticipated time pressure in activity scheduling. Transportation 26(2):173–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Joh C-H, Arentze TA, Timmermans HJ (2001) Understanding activity scheduling and rescheduling behaviour: theory and numerical illustration. GeoJournal 53(4):359–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 72171172 and 62088101; in part by Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology, China Major Project under grant 2021SHZDZX0100; in part by Shanghai Research Institute of China Engineering Science and Technology Development Strategy, Strategic Research and Consulting Project, under grant 2022-DFZD-33-02; and in part by Chinese Academy of Engineering, Strategic Research and Consulting Program, under grant 2022-XY-100.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Electronics and Information Engineering, Tongji University, No. 4800, Cao’an Highway, Shanghai, 201804, China

    Hui Zhao & Li Li

  2. Shanghai Research Institute for Intelligent Autonomous Systems, Shanghai, 201203, China

    Hui Zhao & Li Li

  3. AI-Robolab/ICR, Computer Science and Communications, University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, L-4365, Luxembourg

    Igor Tchappi

  4. CIAD, Université Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, Belfort, 90010, France

    Yazan Mualla & Stéphane Galland

Authors
  1. Hui Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Igor Tchappi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yazan Mualla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stéphane Galland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Li Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Hui Zhao built the model and wrote the paper. Igor H. Tchappi made significant amendments to the content. Yazan Mualla and Stéphane Galland reviewed the paper content and checked the final version of the paper. On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hui Zhao.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhao, H., Tchappi, I., Mualla, Y. et al. An empirical probability-based strategy model for individual decision-making under time pressure when rescheduling daily activities. Pers Ubiquit Comput 27, 1717–1727 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-023-01743-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-023-01743-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation