Помогите с переводиком, но не корявый перевод напишите плиз

Setting a tighter time limit for making decisions has been found to influence search behavior in initial rounds, i.e. when subjects are still inexperienced. This impact of time pressure in the early phase of the experiment is an important finding since it indicates that searching may be particularly suboptimal when subjects face a situation for the first time (think of an employee who suddenly loses his job and urgently needs to find a new source of income, which might induce him to accept the first opportunity of a new occupation, even if it is not an optimal one). The effects of tighter time restrictions on search behavior vanish quickly as subjects gain experience with the task, though. More experience leads in general also to quicker decisions. However, getting quicker does not backfire in the form of worse decisions, as efficiency stays practically constant across all rounds. Hence, there is no speed-accuracy tradeoff (Maule et al., 2000) in our search task. The results of our experiment also show systematic differences in response time. Decisions around the optimal value of 80 require a significantly longer decision time than straightforward decisions like the rejection of a relatively small bid or the acceptance of a relatively high bid. This observation is in line with the findings of Rubinstein (2007) who has shown that decisions that require more cognitive effort take more time. An interesting avenue for future research might be how time pressure affects the use of heuristics in search problems and whether different heuristics are applied, depending on the degree of time pressure.

The most striking finding of our experiment concerns the marked and persistent differences in the search behavior of men and women. Women search for too long significantly more often than men do, and they recall more often (i.e. stop searching at a current bid below the highest standing one). This finding holds both for individual decision making as well as group decision making, as long as there are only women in groups. In terms of efficiency, the longer searching of women and the more frequent recalls do not put women at a significant disadvantage, though, because women and men are almost equally efficient when comparing their earnings with those in case the optimal search duration had been chosen. The lack of a gender difference in efficiency is also driven by men searching more often too short. It is also interesting to note that the search behavior of groups depends crucially on the presence or absence of a man. There are no differences in search behavior between groups with one man or two men. But it makes a large difference whether groups have only female members or a woman is paired with a man. These findings call attention to the importance of the gender composition of groups for the behavior of groups. Recently this aspect has received some attention in economics. For example, Dufwenberg and Muren (2006) have shown in a dictator game that groups with more women are more generous in giving. Our results suggest that group composition is also important in other tasks, like searching, for instance. Since search tasks – such as when committees have to decide on how to fill vacancies – are of obvious importance for organizations, it seems a worthwhile endeavor for future research to further explore the influence of gender composition on group decisions, for example by measuring more rigorously the relative influence of men and women on decisions in groups.