IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1010796.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effects of base rate neglect on sequential belief updating and real-world beliefs

Author

Listed:
  • Brandon K Ashinoff
  • Justin Buck
  • Michael Woodford
  • Guillermo Horga

Abstract

Base-rate neglect is a pervasive bias in judgment that is conceptualized as underweighting of prior information and can have serious consequences in real-world scenarios. This bias is thought to reflect variability in inferential processes but empirical support for a cohesive theory of base-rate neglect with sufficient explanatory power to account for longer-term and real-world beliefs is lacking. A Bayesian formalization of base-rate neglect in the context of sequential belief updating predicts that belief trajectories should exhibit dynamic patterns of dependence on the order in which evidence is presented and its consistency with prior beliefs. To test this, we developed a novel ‘urn-and-beads’ task that systematically manipulated the order of colored bead sequences and elicited beliefs via an incentive-compatible procedure. Our results in two independent online studies confirmed the predictions of the sequential base-rate neglect model: people exhibited beliefs that are more influenced by recent evidence and by evidence inconsistent with prior beliefs. We further found support for a noisy-sampling inference model whereby base-rate neglect results from rational discounting of noisy internal representations of prior beliefs. Finally, we found that model-derived indices of base-rate neglect—including noisier prior representation—correlated with propensity for unusual beliefs outside the laboratory. Our work supports the relevance of Bayesian accounts of sequential base-rate neglect to real-world beliefs and hints at strategies to minimize deleterious consequences of this pervasive bias.Author summary: Base-rate neglect is a common bias in judgment, a bias defined by a tendency to underuse older information when forming a new belief. This bias can have serious consequences in the real world. Base-rate neglect is often cited as a source of errors in medical and legal decisions, and in many other socially relevant contexts. Despite its broad societal relevance, it is unclear whether current theories capture the expression of base-rate neglect in sequential belief formation, and perhaps more crucially why people have this bias in the first place. In this paper, we find support for a model that describes how base-rate neglect influences belief formation over time, showing that people behave in a way that matches theoretical predictions. Knowing how base-rate neglect influences beliefs over time suggests possible strategies that could be implemented in the future to minimize its impact. We also find support for a model which may explain why people exhibit base-rate neglect in the first place. This model suggests that people’s representation of older information in the brain is noisy and that it is therefore rational to underuse this older information to some extent depending on how noisy or unreliable its representation is. Finally, we show that our measures of base-rate neglect and noise in the representation of older information correlate with variation in real-world belief oddity, suggesting that these models capture belief-formation processes likely to dictate functioning in real-world settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Brandon K Ashinoff & Justin Buck & Michael Woodford & Guillermo Horga, 2022. "The effects of base rate neglect on sequential belief updating and real-world beliefs," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(12), pages 1-37, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1010796
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010796
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010796
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010796&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010796?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David M. Grether, 1980. "Bayes Rule as a Descriptive Model: The Representativeness Heuristic," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 95(3), pages 537-557.
    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. Lurås, Hilde, 2009. "A healthy lifestyle: The product of opportunities and preferences," HERO Online Working Paper Series 2001:11, University of Oslo, Health Economics Research Programme.
    2. Dohmen, Thomas & Falk, Armin & Huffman, David & Marklein, Felix & Sunde, Uwe, 2009. "Biased probability judgment: Evidence of incidence and relationship to economic outcomes from a representative sample," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 903-915, December.
    3. Lex Borghans & Bas ter Weel, 2008. "Understanding the Technology of Computer Technology Diffusion: Explaining Computer Adoption Patterns and Implications for the Wage Structure," Journal of Income Distribution, Ad libros publications inc., vol. 17(3-4), pages 37-70, September.
    4. David M. Frankel, 2008. "Adaptive Expectations And Stock Market Crashes," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 49(2), pages 595-619, May.
    5. Markus Schöbel & Jörg Rieskamp & Rafael Huber, 2016. "Social Influences in Sequential Decision Making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, January.
    6. David L. Dickinson & Eugenio Caleb Garbuio, 2020. "The Influence of Dietary Patterns on Outcomes in a Bayesian Choice Task," Working Papers 21-01, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    7. Jason Shachat & Anand Srinivasan, 2022. "Informational Price Cascades and Non-Aggregation of Asymmetric Information in Experimental Asset Markets," Journal of Behavioral Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(4), pages 388-407, November.
    8. Dohmen, T.J. & Falk, A. & Huffman, D. & Marklein, F. & Sunde, U., 2009. "The non-use of Bayes rule: representative evidence on bounded rationality," Research Memorandum 038, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    9. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & Jason Shogren, 2011. "Social Psychology and Environmental Economics: A New Look at ex ante Corrections of Biased Preference Evaluation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 413-433, March.
    10. Goeree, Jacob K. & Offerman, Theo, 2003. "Winner's curse without overbidding," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 625-644, August.
    11. Rick, Scott & Weber, Roberto A., 2010. "Meaningful learning and transfer of learning in games played repeatedly without feedback," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 716-730, March.
    12. Crosetto, Paolo & Filippin, Antonio & Katuščák, Peter & Smith, John, 2020. "Central tendency bias in belief elicitation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    13. Ilke Aydogan & Aurélien Baillon & Emmanuel Kemel & Chen Li, 2025. "How much do we learn? Measuring symmetric and asymmetric deviations from Bayesian updating through choices," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 16(1), pages 329-365, January.
    14. Borgards, Oliver & Czudaj, Robert L. & Hoang, Thi Hong Van, 2021. "Price overreactions in the commodity futures market: An intraday analysis of the Covid-19 pandemic impact," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    15. Weber, Martin & Mueller-Dethard, Jan, 2020. "The Portfolio Composition Effect," CEPR Discussion Papers 15012, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. repec:osf:socarx:mrh5q_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. 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.
    18. Kevin Bauer & Andrej Gill, 2024. "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Algorithmic Assessments, Transparency, and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 226-248, March.
    19. Gary Charness & Dan Levin, 2003. "Bayesian Updating vs. Reinforcement and Affect: A Laboratory Study," Levine's Bibliography 666156000000000180, UCLA Department of Economics.
    20. Benjamin Enke & Uri Gneezy & Brian Hall & David Martin & Vadim Nelidov & Theo Offerman & Jeroen van de Ven, 2020. "Cognitive Biases: Mistakes or Missing Stakes?," CESifo Working Paper Series 8168, CESifo.
    21. Feduzi, Alberto & Runde, Jochen, 2014. "Uncovering unknown unknowns: Towards a Baconian approach to management decision-making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 268-283.

    More about this item

    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:plo:pcbi00:1010796. 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: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    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.