The determinants of decision time in an ambiguous context

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - 2023
Anna Conte1, Gianmarco De Santis2, John D. Hey3, Ivan Soraperra4
1Department of Statistical Sciences, Sapienza, University of Rome, Rome, Italy
2Department of Economics and Law, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
3Department of Economics and Related Studies, University of York, York, England
4Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany

Tóm tắt

AbstractThis paper builds on the data from a published paper on behaviour under ambiguity (Conte & Hey, 2013)—henceforth C&H—to explore the determinants of decision time. C&H categorized individual subjects as being of one of four types (of decision-maker)—Expected Utility, Smooth Ambiguity, Rank Dependent and Alpha Expected Utility—by using the decisions of the subjects, but did not look at the decision times of the different types. We take as given the categorization identified by C&H, and explore whether the classification can explain the decision times of the subjects. We investigate whether and why different types take a different amount of time to decide. We explore the effects of various features related to (mainly psychological) theories of the process of decision-making—i.e., experience with the task, complexity, closeness to indifference and similarity of the options. Our results show that different types take a similar time to make their decisions on average, but decision times of different types are explained by different features of the decision task. This paper is the first investigating the heterogeneity of decision times based on a classification of subjects into different types in an ambiguous (rather than risky) decision context.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Alós-Ferrer, C., & Buckenmaier, J. (2021). Cognitive sophistication and deliberation times. Experimental Economics, 24(2), 558–592.

Alós-Ferrer, C., & Garagnani, M. (2022). Strength of preference and decisions under risk. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 64(3), 309–329.

Alós-Ferrer, C., Fehr, E., & Netzer, N. (2021). Time will tell: Recovering preferences when choices are noisy. Journal of Political Economy, 129(6), 1828–1877.

Arad, A., & Rubinstein, A. (2012). The 11–20 money request game: A level-k reasoning study. American Economic Review, 102(7), 3561–3573.

Cattell, J. M. (1893). On errors of observation. The American Journal of Psychology, 5(3), 285–293.

Cattell, J. M. (1902). The time of perception as a measure of differences in intensity. Philosophische Studien, 5(19), 63–68.

Chabris, C. F., Morris, C. L., Taubinsky, D., Laibson, D., & Schuldt, J. P. (2009). The allocation of time in decision-making. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7(2–3), 628–637.

Conte, A., & Hey, J. (2013). Assessing multiple prior models of behaviour under ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 46(2), 113–132.

Dashiell, J. F. (1937). Affective value-distances as a determinant of esthetic judgment-times. The American Journal of Psychology, 50(1/4), 57–67.

Donders, F. C. (1868). Over de snelheid van psychische processen. Onderzoekingen Gedaan in Het Physiologisch Laboratorium Der Utrechtsche Hoogeschool, 1968–1869(2), 92–120.

Ghirardato, P., Maccheroni, F., & Marinacci, M. (2004). Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude. Journal of Economic Theory, 118(2), 133–173.

Greiner, B. (2015). Subject pool recruitment procedures: Organizing experiments with ORSEE. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 1(1), 114–125.

Hey, J. (2001). Does repetition improve consistency? Experimental Economics, 4(1), 5–54.

Klein, S. (2001). Measuring, estimating, and understanding the psychometric function: A commentary. Perception & Psychophysics, 63(8), 1421–1455.

Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M., & Mukerji, S. (2005). A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity. Econometrica, 73(6), 1849–1892.

Laming, D. (1985). Some principles of sensory analysis. Psychological Review, 92(4), 462–485.

Marschak, J. (1968). Economics of inquiring, communicating, deciding. The American Economic Review, 58(2), 1–18.

Moffatt, P. G. (2005). Stochastic choice and the allocation of cognitive effort. Experimental Economics, 8(4), 369–388.

Moffatt, P. G. (2015). Experimetrics: Econometrics for experimental economics. Macmillan International Higher Education.

Mosteller, F., & Nogee, P. (1951). An experimental measurement of utility. Journal of Political Economy, 59(5), 371–404.

Moyer, R. S., & Landauer, T. K. (1967). Time required for judgements of numerical inequality. Nature, 215(5109), 1519–1520.

Nagel, R. (1995). Unraveling in guessing games: An experimental study. American Economic Review, 85(5), 1313–1326.

Quiggin, J. (1982). A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(4), 323–343.

Selten, R. (1978). The chain store paradox. Theory and Decision, 9(2), 127–159.

Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.

Spiliopoulos, L., & Ortmann, A. (2018). The BCD of response time analysis in experimental economics. Experimental Economics, 21(2), 383–433.

von Neumann, J., Morgenstern, O., & Rubinstein, A. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (60th Anniversary Commemorative Edition). Princeton University Press.

Wichmann, F. A., & Hill, N. J. (2001). The psychometric function: I. Fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit. Perception & Psychophysics, 63(8), 1293–2131.

Wilcox, N. T. (1993). Lottery choice: Incentives, complexity and decision time. The Economic Journal, 103(421), 1397–1417.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Thông tin tác giả