模糊背景下决策时间的决定因素

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2024-01-02 DOI:10.1007/s11166-023-09417-z
Anna Conte, Gianmarco De Santis, John D. Hey, Ivan Soraperra
{"title":"模糊背景下决策时间的决定因素","authors":"Anna Conte, Gianmarco De Santis, John D. Hey, Ivan Soraperra","doi":"10.1007/s11166-023-09417-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper builds on the data from a published paper on behaviour under ambiguity (Conte &amp; Hey, 2013)—henceforth C&amp;H—to explore the determinants of <i>decision time</i>. C&amp;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 <i>decisions</i> of the subjects, but did not look at the <i>decision times</i> of the different types. We take as given the categorization identified by C&amp;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 <i>process</i> 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The determinants of decision time in an ambiguous context\",\"authors\":\"Anna Conte, Gianmarco De Santis, John D. Hey, Ivan Soraperra\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11166-023-09417-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This paper builds on the data from a published paper on behaviour under ambiguity (Conte &amp; Hey, 2013)—henceforth C&amp;H—to explore the determinants of <i>decision time</i>. C&amp;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 <i>decisions</i> of the subjects, but did not look at the <i>decision times</i> of the different types. We take as given the categorization identified by C&amp;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 <i>process</i> 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-023-09417-z\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-023-09417-z","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文以已发表的一篇关于模糊性下行为的论文(Conte & Hey, 2013)(以下简称 C&H)中的数据为基础,探讨决策时间的决定因素。C&H通过受试者的决策,将受试者分为四种类型(决策者)之一--预期效用型、平稳模糊型、等级依赖型和阿尔法预期效用型,但并不考察不同类型的决策时间。我们将 C&H 所确定的分类作为给定,并探讨该分类能否解释受试者的决策时间。我们研究不同类型是否需要不同的决策时间,以及为什么不同类型需要不同的决策时间。我们探讨了与决策过程理论(主要是心理学理论)相关的各种特征的影响,即任务的经验、复杂性、与冷漠的接近程度以及选项的相似性。我们的研究结果表明,不同类型的人做出决策所需的平均时间相似,但不同类型的人做出决策所需的时间可以用决策任务的不同特征来解释。本文是第一篇在模棱两可(而非高风险)的决策情境中,基于将受试者划分为不同类型来研究决策时间异质性的文章。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The determinants of decision time in an ambiguous context

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
Mentorship in academic musculoskeletal radiology: perspectives from a junior faculty member. Underlying synovial sarcoma undiagnosed for more than 20 years in a patient with regional pain: a case report. Sacrococcygeal chordoma with spontaneous regression due to a large hemorrhagic component. Associations of cumulative voriconazole dose, treatment duration, and alkaline phosphatase with voriconazole-induced periostitis. Can the presence of SLAP-5 lesions be predicted by using the critical shoulder angle in traumatic anterior shoulder instability?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1