Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

An Experimental Comparison of Induced and Elicited Beliefs

Contents:

Author Info

  • Terrance Hurley

    ()

  • Jason Shogren

    ()

Abstract

Understanding choice under risk requires knowledge of beliefs and preferences. A variety of methods have been proposed to elicit peoples’ beliefs. The efficacy of alternative methods, however, has not been rigorously documented. Herein we use an experiment to test whether an induced probability can be recovered using an elicitation mechanism based on peoples’ predictions about a random event. We are unable to recover the induced belief. Instead, the estimated belief is systematically biased in a way that is consistent with anecdotal evidence in the economics, psychology, and statistics literature: people seem to overestimate low and underestimate high probabilities. Copyright Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11166-005-6565-5
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Springer in its journal Journal of Risk and Uncertainty.

Volume (Year): 30 (2005)
Issue (Month): 2 (January)
Pages: 169-188

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:30:y:2005:i:2:p:169-188

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100299

Related research

Keywords: beliefs; elicit; induce; probability; risk;

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Harless, David W & Camerer, Colin F, 1994. "The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1251-89, November.
  2. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7656, David K. Levine.
  3. Machina, Mark J, 1987. "Choice under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 121-54, Summer.
  4. Norris, Patricia E. & Kramer, Randall A., 1990. "The Elicitation of Subjective Probabilities with Applications in Agricultural Economics," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 58, December.
  5. Powell, Melanie & Ansic, David, 1997. "Gender differences in risk behaviour in financial decision-making: An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 605-628, November.
  6. Jaffray, Jean-Yves & Karni, Edi, 1999. "Elicitation of Subjective Probabilities When the Initial Endowment is Unobservable," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 5-20, April.
  7. Renate Schubert, 1999. "Financial Decision-Making: Are Women Really More Risk-Averse?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(2), pages 381-385, May.
  8. Grether, David M, 1980. "Bayes Rule as a Descriptive Model: The Representativeness Heuristic," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 95(3), pages 537-57, November.
  9. Jianakoplos, Nancy Ammon & Bernasek, Alexandra, 1998. "Are Women More Risk Averse?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 36(4), pages 620-30, October.
  10. Yaw Nyarko & Andrew Schotter, 2002. "An Experimental Study of Belief Learning Using Elicited Beliefs," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(3), pages 971-1005, May.
  11. Croson, Rachel T. A., 2000. "Thinking like a game theorist: factors affecting the frequency of equilibrium play," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 299-314, March.
  12. El-Gamal, Mahmoud A. & Grether, David M., 1995. "Are People Bayesian? Uncovering Behavioral Strategies," Working Papers 919, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
  13. Offerman, Theo & Sonnemans, Joep & Schram, Arthur, 1996. "Value Orientations, Expectations and Voluntary Contributions in Public Goods," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(437), pages 817-45, July.
  14. Sunden, Annika E & Surette, Brian J, 1998. "Gender Differences in the Allocation of Assets in Retirement Savings Plans," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(2), pages 207-11, May.
  15. McKelvey, Richard D & Page, Talbot, 1990. "Public and Private Information: An Experimental Study of Information Pooling," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(6), pages 1321-39, November.
  16. Dufwenberg, Martin & Gneezy, Uri, 2000. "Measuring Beliefs in an Experimental Lost Wallet Game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 163-182, February.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Mariana Blanco & Dirk Engelmann & Alexander Koch & Hans-Theo Normann, 2010. "Belief elicitation in experiments: is there a hedging problem?," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 412-438, December.
  2. Armantier, Olivier & Treich, Nicolas, 2010. "Eliciting Beliefs: Proper Scoring Rules, Incentives, Stakes and Hedging," LERNA Working Papers 10.26.332, LERNA, University of Toulouse.
  3. Ong, David, 2008. "Sorting with shame in the laboratory," MPRA Paper 16523, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 27 Jul 2009.
  4. Basu, Kaushik & Becchetti, Leonardo & Stanca, Luca, 2008. "Experiments with the Traveler's Dilemma: Welfare, Strategic Choice and Implicit Collusion," Working Papers 08-07, Cornell University, Center for Analytic Economics.
  5. Teisl, Mario F. & Roe, Brian E., 2010. "Consumer willingness-to-pay to reduce the probability of retail foodborne pathogen contamination," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 521-530, December.
  6. W. Viscusi & William Evans, 2006. "Behavioral Probabilities," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 5-15, January.
  7. Langrock, Ines & Hurley, Terrance M., 2006. "Risk Preferences, Perceptions and Systematic Biases," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21343, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  8. Ram Ranjan, 2008. "The future of global warming: will it be emissions control or environmental damages?," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 401-418, May.
  9. Michael McBride, 2010. "Threshold uncertainty in discrete public good games: an experimental study," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 77-99, February.
  10. James Tremewan & Chloé Le Coq & Alexander D. Wagner, 2013. "Social Centipedes: the Impact of Group Identity on Preferences and Reasoning," Vienna Economics Papers 1305, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:30:y:2005:i:2:p:169-188. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F. Baum).

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.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.