IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jrisku/v67y2023i3d10.1007_s11166-023-09417-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The determinants of decision time in an ambiguous context

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Conte

    (Sapienza University of Rome)

  • Gianmarco Santis

    (Sapienza University of Rome)

  • John D. Hey

    (University of York)

  • Ivan Soraperra

    (Max Planck Institute for Human Development)

Abstract

This 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Conte & Gianmarco Santis & John D. Hey & Ivan Soraperra, 2023. "The determinants of decision time in an ambiguous context," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(3), pages 271-297, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:67:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s11166-023-09417-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11166-023-09417-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11166-023-09417-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11166-023-09417-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Ernst Fehr & Nick Netzer, 2021. "Time Will Tell: Recovering Preferences When Choices Are Noisy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(6), pages 1828-1877.
    2. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    3. Peter Moffatt, 2005. "Stochastic Choice and the Allocation of Cognitive Effort," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(4), pages 369-388, December.
    4. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    5. Ghirardato, Paolo & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2004. "Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 133-173, October.
    6. Anna Conte & John D. Hey, 2018. "Assessing multiple prior models of behaviour under ambiguity," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 7, pages 169-188, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. John D. Hey, 2018. "Does Repetition Improve Consistency?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 2, pages 13-62, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Nagel, Rosemarie, 1995. "Unraveling in Guessing Games: An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1313-1326, December.
    9. Christopher F. Chabris & David Laibson & Carrie L. Morris & Jonathon P. Schuldt & Dmitry Taubinsky, 2009. "The Allocation of Time in Decision-Making," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 7(2-3), pages 628-637, 04-05.
    10. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    11. Leonidas Spiliopoulos & Andreas Ortmann, 2018. "The BCD of response time analysis in experimental economics," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(2), pages 383-433, June.
    12. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Johannes Buckenmaier, 2021. "Cognitive sophistication and deliberation times," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 558-592, June.
    13. Peter Klibanoff & Massimo Marinacci & Sujoy Mukerji, 2005. "A Smooth Model of Decision Making under Ambiguity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(6), pages 1849-1892, November.
    14. Frederick Mosteller & Philip Nogee, 1951. "An Experimental Measurement of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(5), pages 371-371.
    15. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Michele Garagnani, 2022. "Strength of preference and decisions under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 64(3), pages 309-329, June.
    16. Wilcox, Nathaniel T, 1993. "Lottery Choice: Incentives, Complexity and Decision Time," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 103(421), pages 1397-1417, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Johannes Buckenmaier, 2021. "Cognitive sophistication and deliberation times," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 558-592, June.
    2. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Garagnani, Michele, 2022. "The gradual nature of economic errors," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 55-66.
    3. Jan Hausfeld & Sven Resnjanskij, 2017. "Risky Decisions and the Opportunity Costs of Time," TWI Research Paper Series 108, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
    4. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Ernst Fehr & Nick Netzer, 2021. "Time Will Tell: Recovering Preferences When Choices Are Noisy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(6), pages 1828-1877.
    5. Duffy, Sean & Smith, John, 2020. "An economist and a psychologist form a line: What can imperfect perception of length tell us about stochastic choice?," MPRA Paper 99417, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Cary Frydman & Ian Krajbich, 2022. "Using Response Times to Infer Others’ Private Information: An Application to Information Cascades," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2970-2986, April.
    7. Irenaeus Wolff & Dominik Folli, 2024. "Why Is Belief-Action Consistency so Low? The Role of Belief Uncertainty," TWI Research Paper Series 130, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
    8. Clithero, John A., 2018. "Response times in economics: Looking through the lens of sequential sampling models," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 61-86.
    9. Tsang, Ming, 2020. "Estimating uncertainty aversion using the source method in stylized tasks with varying degrees of uncertainty," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    10. Ali al-Nowaihi & Sanjit Dhami & Mengxing Wei, 2018. "Quantum Decision Theory and the Ellsberg Paradox," CESifo Working Paper Series 7158, CESifo.
    11. Arkady Konovalov & Ian Krajbich, 2016. "Revealed Indifference: Using Response Times to Infer Preferences," Working Papers 16-01, Ohio State University, Department of Economics.
    12. David J. Cooper & Ian Krajbich & Charles N. Noussair, 2019. "Choice-Process Data in Experimental Economics," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, August.
    13. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Michele Garagnani, 2022. "Strength of preference and decisions under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 64(3), pages 309-329, June.
    14. Nathaniel T. Wilcox, 2023. "Unusual Estimates of Probability Weighting Functions," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Models of Risk Preferences: Descriptive and Normative Challenges, volume 22, pages 69-106, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    15. Wilcox, Nathaniel T., 2011. "'Stochastically more risk averse:' A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 89-104, May.
    16. Irenaeus Wolff & Dominik Bauer, 2018. "Elusive Beliefs: Why Uncertainty Leads to Stochastic Choice and Errors," TWI Research Paper Series 111, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
    17. Nathaniel T. Wilcox, 2015. "Error and Generalization in Discrete Choice Under Risk," Working Papers 15-11, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    18. Duffy, Sean & Gussman, Steven & Smith, John, 2021. "Visual judgments of length in the economics laboratory: Are there brains in stochastic choice?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    19. Ali al-Nowaihi & Sanjit Dhami, 2016. "The Ellsberg paradox: A challenge to quantum decision theory?," Discussion Papers in Economics 16/08, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester.
    20. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Johannes Buckenmaier & Michele Garagnani, 2020. "Stochastic choice and preference reversals," ECON - Working Papers 370, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Jul 2021.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Decision time; Choice under uncertainty; Panel data; Cross-validation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C23 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • C24 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Truncated and Censored Models; Switching Regression Models; Threshold Regression Models
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:67:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s11166-023-09417-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.