IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2602.06263.html

Chasing Tails: How Do People Respond to Wait Time Distributions?

Author

Listed:
  • Evgeny Kagan
  • Kyle Hyndman
  • Andrew Davis

Abstract

We use a series of pre-registered, incentive-compatible online experiments to investigate how people evaluate and choose among different waiting time distributions. Our main findings are threefold. First, consistent with prior literature, people show an aversion to both longer expected waits and higher variance. Second, and more surprisingly, moment-based utility models fail to capture preferences when distributions have thick-right tails: indeed, decision-makers strongly prefer distributions with long-right tails (where probability mass is more evenly distributed over a larger support set) relative to tails that exhibit a spike near the maximum possible value, even when controlling for mean, variance, and higher moments. Conditional Value at Risk (CVaR) utility models commonly used in portfolio theory predict these choices well. Third, when given a choice, decision-makers overwhelmingly seek information about right-tail outcomes. These results have practical implications for service operations: (1) service designs that create a spike in long waiting times (such as priority or dedicated queue designs) may be particularly aversive; (2) when informativeness is the goal, providers should prioritize sharing right-tail probabilities or percentiles; and (3) to increase service uptake, providers can strategically disclose (or withhold) distributional information depending on right-tail shape.

Suggested Citation

  • Evgeny Kagan & Kyle Hyndman & Andrew Davis, 2026. "Chasing Tails: How Do People Respond to Wait Time Distributions?," Papers 2602.06263, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2602.06263
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2602.06263
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2602.06263. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.