IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/een/camaaa/2018-01.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Belief adjustment: A double hurdle model and experimental evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Timo Henckel
  • Gordon D. Menzies
  • Peter G. Moffatt
  • Daniel J. Zizzo

Abstract

We present an experiment where subjects sequentially receive signals about the true state of the world and need to form beliefs about which one is true, with payoffs related to reported beliefs. We control for risk aversion using the Offerman et al. (2009) technique. Against the baseline of Bayesian updating, we test for belief adjustment under-reaction and over-reaction and model the decision making process of the agent as a double hurdle model where agents first decide whether to adjust their beliefs and then, if so, decide by how much. We find evidence for periods of belief inertia interspersed with belief adjustment. This is due to a combination of: random belief adjustment; state dependent belief adjustment, with many subjects requiring considerable evidence to change their beliefs; and Quasi-Bayesian belief adjustment, with insufficient belief adjustment when a belief change does occur.

Suggested Citation

  • Timo Henckel & Gordon D. Menzies & Peter G. Moffatt & Daniel J. Zizzo, 2018. "Belief adjustment: A double hurdle model and experimental evidence," CAMA Working Papers 2018-01, Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    • Handle: RePEc:een:camaaa:2018-01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cama.crawford.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/publication/cama_crawford_anu_edu_au/2018-01/1_2018_henckel_menzies_moffatt_zizzo.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cecchetti, Stephen G & Mark, Nelson C, 1990. "Evaluating Empirical Tests of Asset Pricing Models: Alternative Interpretations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 48-51, May.
    2. Johannes Abeler & Armin Falk & Lorenz Goette & David Huffman, 2011. "Reference Points and Effort Provision," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 470-492, April.
    3. Davis, Douglas D. & Holt, Charles a., 1993. "Experimental economics: Methods, problems and promise," Estudios Económicos, El Colegio de México, Centro de Estudios Económicos, vol. 8(2), pages 179-212.
    4. Bartosz Maćkowiak & Mirko Wiederholt, 2015. "Business Cycle Dynamics under Rational Inattention," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 82(4), pages 1502-1532.
    5. Fernando Alvarez & Francesco Lippi & Juan Passadore, 2017. "Are State- and Time-Dependent Models Really Different?," NBER Macroeconomics Annual, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(1), pages 379-457.
    6. N. Gregory Mankiw & Ricardo Reis, 2002. "Sticky Information versus Sticky Prices: A Proposal to Replace the New Keynesian Phillips Curve," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(4), pages 1295-1328.
    7. Menzies Gordon Douglas & Zizzo Daniel John, 2009. "Inferential Expectations," The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-27, December.
    8. Steven Tadelis, 2002. "Complexity, Flexibility, and the Make-or-Buy Decision," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(2), pages 433-437, May.
    9. Cohen, Samuel N. & Henckel, Timo & Menzies, Gordon D. & Muhle-Karbe, Johannes & Zizzo, Daniel J., 2019. "Switching cost models as hypothesis tests," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 32-35.
    10. Wouter Dessein & Andrea Galeotti & Tano Santos, 2016. "Rational Inattention and Organizational Focus," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(6), pages 1522-1536, June.
    11. Khaw, Mel Win & Stevens, Luminita & Woodford, Michael, 2017. "Discrete adjustment to a changing environment: Experimental evidence," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 88-103.
    12. Georgios Gerasimou, 2018. "Indecisiveness, Undesirability and Overload Revealed Through Rational Choice Deferral," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(614), pages 2450-2479, September.
    13. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    14. Calvo, Guillermo A., 1983. "Staggered prices in a utility-maximizing framework," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 383-398, September.
    15. Cade Massey & George Wu, 2005. "Detecting Regime Shifts: The Causes of Under- and Overreaction," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(6), pages 932-947, June.
    16. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean & Daniel Martin, 2011. "Search and Satisficing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 2899-2922, December.
    17. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    18. Oliver Boguth & Lars‐Alexander Kuehn, 2013. "Consumption Volatility Risk," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 68(6), pages 2589-2615, December.
    19. Christopher D. Carroll, 2003. "Macroeconomic Expectations of Households and Professional Forecasters," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(1), pages 269-298.
    20. Andrew B. Abel & Janice C. Eberly & Stavros Panageas, 2013. "Optimal Inattention to the Stock Market With Information Costs and Transactions Costs," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(4), pages 1455-1481, July.
    21. Huck, Steffen & Zhou, Jidong, 2011. "Consumer behavioural biases in competition: A survey," MPRA Paper 31794, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    22. Simon, Herbert A, 1979. "Rational Decision Making in Business Organizations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 493-513, September.
    23. Stefania Sitzia & Daniel Zizzo, 2011. "Does product complexity matter for competition in experimental retail markets?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 70(1), pages 65-82, January.
    24. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, December.
    25. Theo Offerman & Joep Sonnemans & Gijs Van De Kuilen & Peter P. Wakker, 2009. "A Truth Serum for Non-Bayesians: Correcting Proper Scoring Rules for Risk Attitudes ," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(4), pages 1461-1489.
    26. Jacopo Magnani & Aspen Gorry & Ryan Oprea, 2016. "Time and State Dependence in an Ss Decision Experiment," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 285-310, January.
    27. Martin, Daniel, 2017. "Strategic pricing with rational inattention to quality," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 131-145.
    28. Baron, Jonathan & Ritov, Ilana, 2004. "Omission bias, individual differences, and normality," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 74-85, July.
    29. Stefania Sitzia & Jiwei Zheng & Daniel Zizzo, 2015. "Inattentive consumers in markets for services," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(2), pages 307-332, September.
    30. Menzies, Gordon D. & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2012. "Monetary policy and inferential expectations of exchange rates," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 359-380.
    31. Matthew Rabin, 2013. "Incorporating Limited Rationality into Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 51(2), pages 528-543, June.
    32. Wilcox, Nathaniel T, 1993. "Lottery Choice: Incentives, Complexity and Decision Time," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 103(421), pages 1397-1417, November.
    33. Philippe Bacchetta & Eric van Wincoop, 2010. "Infrequent Portfolio Decisions: A Solution to the Forward Discount Puzzle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 870-904, June.
    34. Matthew Rabin & Joel L. Schrag, 1999. "First Impressions Matter: A Model of Confirmatory Bias," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(1), pages 37-82.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. Timo Henckel & Gordon D. Menzies & Peter Moffat & Daniel J. Zizzo, 2019. "Three Dimensions of Central Bank Credibility and Inferential Expectations: The Euro Zone," Working Paper Series 56, Economics Discipline Group, UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney.
    2. Corazzini, Luca & Galavotti, Stefano & Valbonesi, Paola, 2019. "An experimental study on sequential auctions with privately known capacities," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 289-315.
    3. Kawakami, Hajime, 2023. "Doob’s consistency of a non-Bayesian updating process," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    4. Henckel, Timo & Menzies, Gordon D. & Moffatt, Peter & Zizzo, Daniel J., 2019. "Three dimensions of central bank credibility and inferential expectations: The Euro zone," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 294-308.
    5. Bauer, Kevin & von Zahn, Moritz & Hinz, Oliver, 2022. "Expl(AI)ned: The impact of explainable Artificial Intelligence on cognitive processes," SAFE Working Paper Series 315, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2022.
    6. Clement A. Tisdell, 2018. "Diversity In Economic Decision-Making And Behaviour: A New Brief Review," Advances in Decision Sciences, Asia University, Taiwan, vol. 22(1), pages 351-368, December.
    7. Mel W Khaw & Luminita Stevens & Michael Woodford, 2021. "Individual differences in the perception of probability," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-25, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Timo Henckel & Gordon Menzies & Peter Moffat & Daniel J. Zizzo, 2017. "Sticky Belief Adjustment: A Double Hurdle Model and Experimental Evidence," Working Paper Series 40, Economics Discipline Group, UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney.
    2. Xavier Gabaix, 2017. "Behavioral Inattention," NBER Working Papers 24096, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Cohen, Samuel N. & Henckel, Timo & Menzies, Gordon D. & Muhle-Karbe, Johannes & Zizzo, Daniel J., 2019. "Switching cost models as hypothesis tests," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 32-35.
    4. Bartosz Maćkowiak & Filip Matějka & Mirko Wiederholt, 2023. "Rational Inattention: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 226-273, March.
    5. Timo Henckel & Gordon D. Menzies & Peter Moffat & Daniel J. Zizzo, 2019. "Three Dimensions of Central Bank Credibility and Inferential Expectations: The Euro Zone," Working Paper Series 56, Economics Discipline Group, UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney.
    6. Mankiw, N. Gregory & Reis, Ricardo, 2010. "Imperfect Information and Aggregate Supply," Handbook of Monetary Economics, in: Benjamin M. Friedman & Michael Woodford (ed.), Handbook of Monetary Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 5, pages 183-229, Elsevier.
    7. J r my Boccanfuso, 2022. "Consumption Response Heterogeneity and Dynamics with an Inattention Region," Working Papers wp1172, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    8. Mankiw, N. Gregory & Reis, Ricardo, 2010. "Imperfect Information and Aggregate Supply," Scholarly Articles 33907956, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    9. Henckel, Timo & Menzies, Gordon D. & Moffatt, Peter & Zizzo, Daniel J., 2019. "Three dimensions of central bank credibility and inferential expectations: The Euro zone," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 294-308.
    10. Monique Reid & Gideon Rand, 2015. "A Sticky Information Phillips Curve for South Africa," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 83(4), pages 506-526, December.
    11. Jan Hausfeld & Sven Resnjanskij, 2017. "Risky Decisions and the Opportunity Costs of Time," TWI Research Paper Series 108, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
    12. Camille Cornand & Frank Heinemann, 2018. "Experiments on macroeconomics: methods and applications," Working Papers 1810, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    13. Fernando Alvarez & Francesco Lippi & Luigi Paciello, 2018. "Monetary shocks in models with observation and menu costs," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 353-382.
    14. Anmol Bhandari & Jaroslav Borovicka & Paul Ho, 2019. "Survey Data and Subjective Beliefs in Business Cycle Models," Working Paper 19-14, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.
    15. Camille Cornand & Frank Heinemann, 2018. "Experiments on macroeconomics: methods and applications," Working Papers halshs-01809937, HAL.
    16. Dixon, Huw D. & Grimme, Christian, 2022. "State-dependent or time-dependent pricing? New evidence from a monthly firm-level survey: 1980–2017," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    17. da Silveira, Jaylson Jair & Lima, Gilberto Tadeu, 2021. "Wage inequality as a source of endogenous macroeconomic fluctuations," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 35-52.
    18. Armantier, Olivier & Treich, Nicolas, 2013. "Eliciting beliefs: Proper scoring rules, incentives, stakes and hedging," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 17-40.
    19. Kevin Lansing, 2009. "Time Varying U.S. Inflation Dynamics and the New Keynesian Phillips Curve," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 12(2), pages 304-326, April.
    20. Candian, Giacomo, 2019. "Information frictions and real exchange rate dynamics," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 189-205.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    belief revision; double hurdle model; expectations; overreaction; under re-action;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C34 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Truncated and Censored Models; Switching Regression Models
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D84 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Expectations; Speculations
    • E03 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - General - - - Behavioral Macroeconomics

    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:een:camaaa:2018-01. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Cama Admin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/asanuau.html .

    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.