ABSTRACT
Research on habitual or routinized decision making has been conducted, for the most part, using two different approaches. First, in laboratory experiments, habit or routine strength is usually measured in a controlled laboratory setting. Researchers employing this approach are interested in the impact of the strength of routine or habit on various facets of current decisions. These include the attitude–behavior relation (e.g., Verplanken, Aarts, van Knippenberg, & Moonen, 1998) or the elaborateness of information search (e.g., Aarts, Verplanken, & van Knippenberg, 1997; Verplanken, Aarts, & van Knippenberg, 1997; for an overview of routine effects, see Betsch, Haberstroh, & Höhle, 2002). Second, in applied research on recurrent decision making, researchers study decisions with a view to the realistic consequences in a natural environment, such as the decisions of fire fighters or sports referees (Omodei, McLennan, & Wearing, chap. 15, this volume; Plessner, chap. 17, this volume). Novices are compared to experts who have developed their expertise over a long period of time (see e.g., Shanteau, Friel, Thomas, & Raacke, chap. 14, this volume; Omodei et al., chap. 15, this volume). Employing this approach, exact experimental control often has to be traded against the more realistic setting and the more generality of the results (for an overview see e.g., Salas & Klein, 2001).
