A Dual-Process Technique for Risk Decision Making by Implicating Equate-to-Differentiate Approach

The mainstream risk decision making models, which follow the maximization rule, are based on the unbounded rationality hypothesis. However, the Equate-to-Differentiate model, which is a heuristic framework and follows the satisfaction rule, challenges these dominating models by proposing a bounded rationality approach. This study contributes to research on dual-process techniques by applying both models for explaining inference strategies that are used in individuals predicting and reasoning behaviors. To test its empirical validity, we demonstrate evidence that our model can account for real practical choices which are anomalies or paradoxes from the point of view of many other risk decision making models.