IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v113y2024ics2214804324001435.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘Update Bias’: Manipulating past information based on the existing circumstances

Author

Listed:
  • Umer, Hamza
  • Kurosaki, Takashi

Abstract

Many panel surveys elicit information about past events multiple times. It is, however, unclear whether respondents manipulate their past information and update it according to their current circumstances in the later rounds of the panel. We term such a systematic bias in reporting past information as “update bias” in this study. We systematically test the presence of update bias in panel data by comparing teenage religiosity obtained from adults first in 2019 and later in 2022 in the Netherlands. Respondents who become more (less) religious in 2022 than 2019 are likelier to report a higher (lower) teenage religiosity in 2022. Even when we use data with a narrower gap (2019 and 2020 survey waves), we still obtain similar results. Overall, the analysis provides strong evidence for update bias. We suggest that the theory of cognitive dissonance best explains our findings; individuals manipulate their teenage religiosity to minimize dissonance between the past and current religious state and to obtain a higher satisfaction. Unlike predominant existing literature that argues people modify their current beliefs according to previous anchors, we provide contrary evidence where people manipulate their past beliefs following their current circumstances.

Suggested Citation

  • Umer, Hamza & Kurosaki, Takashi, 2024. "‘Update Bias’: Manipulating past information based on the existing circumstances," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:113:y:2024:i:c:s2214804324001435
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2024.102306
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804324001435
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2024.102306?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kilic, Talip & Moylan, Heather & Ilukor, John & Mtengula, Clement & Pangapanga-Phiri, Innocent, 2021. "Root for the tubers: Extended-harvest crop production and productivity measurement in surveys," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    2. Isis Gaddis & Gbemisola Oseni & Amparo Palacios-Lopez & Janneke Pieters, 2021. "Measuring Farm Labor: Survey Experimental Evidence from Ghana," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 35(3), pages 604-634.
    3. Yves Le Yaouanq & Peter Schwardmann, 2022. "Learning About One’s Self," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 20(5), pages 1791-1828.
    4. Daron Acemoglu & Ali Cheema & Asim I. Khwaja & James A. Robinson, 2020. "Trust in State and Nonstate Actors: Evidence from Dispute Resolution in Pakistan," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(8), pages 3090-3147.
    5. Wollburg, Philip & Tiberti, Marco & Zezza, Alberto, 2021. "Recall length and measurement error in agricultural surveys," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    6. Calogero Carletto & Dean Jolliffe & Raka Banerjee, 2015. "From Tragedy to Renaissance: Improving Agricultural Data for Better Policies," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(2), pages 133-148, February.
    7. repec:mpr:mprres:4832 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Beegle, Kathleen & Carletto, Calogero & Himelein, Kristen, 2012. "Reliability of recall in agricultural data," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 34-41.
    9. Akerlof, George A & Dickens, William T, 1982. "The Economic Consequences of Cognitive Dissonance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 307-319, June.
    10. Ryan Oprea & Sevgi Yuksel, 2022. "Social Exchange of Motivated Beliefs," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 20(2), pages 667-699.
    11. Furnham, Adrian & Boo, Hua Chu, 2011. "A literature review of the anchoring effect," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 35-42, February.
    12. Godlonton, Susan & Hernandez, Manuel A. & Paz, Cynthia, 2021. "Can survey design reduce anchoring bias in recall data? Evidence from Malawi," IFPRI discussion papers 2055, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    13. James P. Smith & Duncan Thomas, 2003. "Remembrances of things past: test–retest reliability of retrospective migration histories," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 166(1), pages 23-49, February.
    14. Gilad, Benjamin & Kaish, Stanley & Loeb, Peter D., 1987. "Cognitive dissonance and utility maximization : A general framework," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 61-73, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Wollburg, Philip & Tiberti, Marco & Zezza, Alberto, 2021. "Recall length and measurement error in agricultural surveys," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    2. Adzawla, William & Setsoafia, Edinam D. & Setsoafia, Eugene D. & Amoabeng-Nimako, Solomon & Atakora, Williams K. & Bindraban, Prem D., 2024. "Accuracy of agricultural data and implications for policy: Evidence from maize farmer recall surveys and crop cuts in the Guinea Savannah zone of Ghana," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    3. Elena Serfilippi & Daniele Giovannucci & David Ameyaw & Ankur Bansal & Thomas Asafua Nketsia Wobill & Roberta Blankson & Rashi Mishra, 2022. "Benefits and Challenges of Making Data More Agile: A Review of Recent Key Approaches in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-18, December.
    4. Calogero Carletto, 2021. "Better data, higher impact: improving agricultural data systems for societal change [Correlated non-classical measurement errors, ‘second best’ policy inference, and the inverse size-productivity r," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(4), pages 719-740.
    5. Jules Gazeaud & Victor Stephane, 2023. "Productive Workfare? Evidence from Ethiopia's Productive Safety Net Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(1), pages 265-290, January.
    6. Hosseini, Hamid, 2003. "The arrival of behavioral economics: from Michigan, or the Carnegie School in the 1950s and the early 1960s?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 391-409, September.
    7. Abid Hussain & Gopal Bahadur Thapa, 2016. "Fungibility of Smallholder Agricultural Credit: Empirical Evidence from Pakistan," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 28(5), pages 826-846, November.
    8. Vaiknoras, Kate A. & Larochelle, Catherine & Alwang, Jeffrey, 2021. "How the adoption of drought-tolerant rice varieties impacts households in a non-drought year: Evidence from Nepal," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313877, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Lodewijk Smets & Stephen Knack & Nadia Molenaers, 2013. "Political ideology, quality at entry and the success of economic reform programs," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 447-476, December.
    10. Peterson-Wilhelm, Bailey & Schwab, Benjamin, 2024. "How does recall bias in farm labor impact separability tests?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    11. Gosnell, Greer K., 2018. "Communicating Resourcefully: A Natural Field Experiment on Environmental Framing and Cognitive Dissonance in Going Paperless," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 128-144.
    12. Kai Barron, 2021. "Belief updating: does the ‘good-news, bad-news’ asymmetry extend to purely financial domains?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 31-58, March.
    13. Nir, A., 2004. "A Behavioral Model of Conumption Patterns : The Effects of Cognitive Dissonance and Conformity," Discussion Paper 2004-48, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    14. Hosseini, Hamid, 1997. "Cognitive dissonance as a means of explaining economics of irrationality and uncertainty," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 181-189.
    15. Bruno S. Frey & Reiner Eichenberger, 1989. "Should Social Scientists Care about Choice Anomalies?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 1(1), pages 101-122, July.
    16. Vaiknoras, Kate & Larochelle, Catherine & Alwang, Jeffrey, 2020. "IFAD RESERACH SERIES 64 - How the adoption of drought-tolerant rice varieties impacts households in a non-drought year: Evidence from Nepal," IFAD Research Series 308809, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
    17. Nir, A., 2004. "Cognitive Procedures and Hyperbolic Discounting," Other publications TiSEM e26d6ae0-fc76-4fb2-b845-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    18. Abay,Kibrom A. & Barrett,Christopher B. & Kilic,Talip & Moylan,Heather G. & Ilukor,John & Vundru,Wilbert Drazi, 2022. "Nonclassical Measurement Error and Farmers’ Response to Information Reveal Behavioral Anomalies," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9908, The World Bank.
    19. Balestrino, Alessandro & Ciardi, Cinzia, 2008. "Social norms, cognitive dissonance and the timing of marriage," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2399-2410, December.
    20. Douglas Lee & Jean Daunizeau, 2020. "Choosing what we like vs liking what we choose: How choice-induced preference change might actually be instrumental to decision-making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-15, May.

    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:eee:soceco:v:113:y:2024:i:c:s2214804324001435. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    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.