Noisy Foresight

Abstract In a controlled experiment, we show that decision-makers in a one-player, dynamic setting often fail to think through their own future actions before making initial decisions. This failure to plan at future contingencies implies a lack of perfect foresight, violating a fundamental assumption in dynamic decision problems. We show that neither experience nor prompting subjects to think about their future actions improve behavior. Instead the problem stems from failing to think through how future actions translate to optimal actions in the first period. We then turn to the question of how to model the foresight of such boundedly rational agents. Using the rich dataset we collect, across the five behavioral models we consider, we find that a model in which subjects expect to make less mistakes when the utility consequences of their future actions are more disparate best fits behavior.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of the European Economic Association
Published
2026-03-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvag013
Primary Topic
Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Noisy Foresight

Chad Kendall, Anujit Chakraborty
Journal of the European Economic Association
Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
article

Noisy Foresight

Chad Kendall, Anujit Chakraborty
article en

Abstract

Abstract In a controlled experiment, we show that decision-makers in a one-player, dynamic setting often fail to think through their own future actions before making initial decisions. This failure to plan at future contingencies implies a lack of perfect foresight, violating a fundamental assumption in dynamic decision problems. We show that neither experience nor prompting subjects to think about their future actions improve behavior. Instead the problem stems from failing to think through how future actions translate to optimal actions in the first period. We then turn to the question of how to model the foresight of such boundedly rational agents. Using the rich dataset we collect, across the five behavioral models we consider, we find that a model in which subjects expect to make less mistakes when the utility consequences of their future actions are more disparate best fits behavior.

Journal of the European Economic Association
University of Miami (US), University of California, Davis (US)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 21%
Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.