Nonresponse and Focal Point Answers to Subjective Probability Questions
AbstractWe develop and estimate a panel data model explaining the answers to questions about subjective probabilities, using data from the US Health and Retirement Study. We explicitly account for nonresponse, rounding, and focal point “50 percent” answers. Our results indicate that for three of the four questions considered, almost all 50 percent answers can be explained by rounding. We also find observed and unobserved heterogeneity in the tendencies to report rounded values or a focal answer, explaining persistency in 50 percent-answers over time. Incorporating rounding and focal answers changes some of the conclusions about the socio-economic factors that determine expectations.
Download InfoIf 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in its series IZA Discussion Papers with number 5272.
Length: 39 pages
Date of creation: Oct 2010
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: IZA, P.O. Box 7240, D-53072 Bonn, Germany
Phone: +49 228 3894 223
Fax: +49 228 3894 180
Web page: http://www.iza.org
Postal: IZA, Margard Ody, P.O. Box 7240, D-53072 Bonn, Germany
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
- D84 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Expectations; Speculations
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2010-11-06 (All new papers)
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.:
- Arthur van Soest & Michael Hurd, 2003.
"A Test for Anchoring and Yea-Saying in Experimental Consumption Data,"
147, RAND Corporation Publications Department.
- van Soest, Arthur & Hurd, Michael, 2008. "A Test for Anchoring and Yea-Saying in Experimental Consumption Data," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 103, pages 126-136, March.
- Soest, A.H.O. van & Hurd, M., 2004. "A Test for Anchoring and Yea-Saying in Experimental Consumption Data," Discussion Paper 2004-27, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Soest, A.H.O. van & Hurd, M., 2008. "A test for anchoring and yea-saying in experimental consumption data," Open Access publications from Tilburg University urn:nbn:nl:ui:12-210599, Tilburg University.
- Arthur van Soest & Michael Hurd, 2004. "A Test for Anchoring and Yea-Saying in Experimental Consumption Data," NBER Working Papers 10462, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Alexander Zimper, 2012.
"The emergence of "fifty-fifty" probability judgements in a conditional Savage world,"
201221, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.
- Alexander Zimper, 2012. "The emergence of "fifty-fifty" probability judgements in a conditional Savage world," Working Papers 291, Economic Research Southern Africa.
- van Santen, Peter & Alessie, Rob & Kalwij, Adriaan, 2012. "Probabilistic survey questions and incorrect answers: Retirement income replacement rates," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 267-280.
- Robin L. Lumsdaine & Rogier J.D. Potter van Loon, 2013. "Wall Street vs. Main Street: An Evaluation of Probabilities," NBER Working Papers 19103, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mark Fallak).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.