IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jrisku/v70y2025i2d10.1007_s11166-024-09445-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fast and slow dynamic decision making under ambiguity

Author

Listed:
  • Rocco Caferra

    (Unitelma Sapienza University of Rome, Department of Law and Economics)

  • John Hey

    (University of Bari, Department of Economics, Management and Business Law)

  • Andrea Morone

    (Department of Economics, University of York)

Abstract

Different people think in different ways, and their behaviour can be analysed in different ways. In this paper, we analyse the correlation between the type of behaviour and the time taken to reach a decision in a dynamic context and under ambiguity with different monetary incentives, linking the results with fast and slow thinking processes. Four different types of dynamic decision-makers are identified: Resolute, Myopic, Sophisticated, and Expected Utility (EU). The different types use different methods to solve dynamic problems: A Resolute decision-maker (DM) decides right at the beginning his or her strategy, a Myopic DM simplifies the problem by ignoring part of it, a Sophisticated DM works by backward induction, and an EU DM either works by backward induction or by using the Strategy Method. We use data from (Caferra et al., 2023) where subjects were asked to solve a two-stage dynamic allocation problem. In that experiment, there were two treatments, incentivised and unincentivised. We found that their type matters: EU subjects take more time to solve the ambiguity, showing a relationship between dynamic consistency and ambiguity-neutrality with a deliberative thinking process. We also found that subjects in the non-incentivised treatment take less time, indicating that monetary incentives matter. The gap between the probabilities at each stage appears to be a good predictor of uncertainty for uncertainty averse subjects: the higher is the gap, the clearer is the most probable event and the lower is the time subjects spend to solve the decision problem.

Suggested Citation

  • Rocco Caferra & John Hey & Andrea Morone, 2025. "Fast and slow dynamic decision making under ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 70(2), pages 89-104, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:70:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s11166-024-09445-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11166-024-09445-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11166-024-09445-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11166-024-09445-3?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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Decision time; Choice under uncertainty; Ambiguity; Risk; Dynamic inconsistency; Ambiguity box; Sequential choice; Myopic; Resolute; Sophisticated; Expected Utility; Dual-decision process; Probability gap;
    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:70:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s11166-024-09445-3. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.