IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/japmet/v26y2011i3p371-392.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When Kahneman meets Manski: Using dual systems of reasoning to interpret subjective expectations of equity returns

Author

Listed:
  • Fabian Gouret
  • Guillaume Hollard

Abstract

To understand how decisions to invest in stocks are taken, economists need to elicit expectations relative to expected risk-return trade-off. One of the few surveys which have included such questions is the Survey of Economic Expectations in 1999-2001. Using this survey, Dominitz and Manski find an important heterogeneity across respondents that can hardly be accounted for by simple models of expectations formation. This paper claims that much of the heterogeneity derives from pathologies affecting respondents. Adapting a principle of dual-reasoning borrowed from Kahneman, we classify respondents according to their sensitivity to these pathologies, and find a strong homogeneity across the less sensitive respondents. We then sketch a model of expectation formation.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Fabian Gouret & Guillaume Hollard, 2011. "When Kahneman meets Manski: Using dual systems of reasoning to interpret subjective expectations of equity returns," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(3), pages 371-392, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:japmet:v:26:y:2011:i:3:p:371-392
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van Rooij, Maarten & Lusardi, Annamaria & Alessie, Rob, 2011. "Financial literacy and stock market participation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 449-472, August.
    2. Jeff Dominitz & Charles F. Manski, 2007. "Expected Equity Returns and Portfolio Choice: Evidence from the Health and Retirement Study," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 5(2-3), pages 369-379, 04-05.
    3. Christelis, Dimitris & Jappelli, Tullio & Padula, Mario, 2010. "Cognitive abilities and portfolio choice," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 18-38, January.
    4. Hurd, Michael D, 1999. "Anchoring and Acquiescence Bias in Measuring Assets in Household Surveys," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 111-136, December.
    5. Dominitz, Jeff, 2001. "Estimation of income expectations models using expectations and realization data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 165-195, June.
    6. Flachaire, Emmanuel & Hollard, Guillaume, 2008. "Individual sensitivity to framing effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 296-307, July.
    7. Péter Hudomiet & Gábor Kézdi & Robert J. Willis, 2011. "Stock market crash and expectations of American households," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(3), pages 393-415, April.
    8. Daniel Kahneman, 2003. "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1449-1475, December.
    9. repec:use:tkiwps:2323 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Binswanger, Johannes & Salm, Martin, 2013. "Does Everyone Use Probabilities? Intuitive and Rational Decisions about Stockholding," IZA Discussion Papers 7265, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    2. Teresa Bago d'Uva & Esen Erdogan Ciftci & Owen O'Donnell & Eddy van Doorslaer, 2015. "Who can predict their Own Demise? Accuracy of Longevity Expectations by Education and Cognition," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 15-052/V, Tinbergen Institute.
    3. 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.
    4. Agarwal, Sandip & Jacobs, Keri L. & Weninger, Quinn, 2016. "Elicitation of Subjective Beliefs: A Pilot study of farmers' nitrogen management decision-making in Central Iowa," ISU General Staff Papers 201601010800001005, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    5. repec:ucp:macann:doi:10.1086/696061 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Filip Premik & Ewa Stanisławska, 2017. "The Impact of Inflation Expectations on Polish Consumers’ Spending and Saving," Eastern European Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(1), pages 3-28, January.
    7. Charles F. Manski, 2018. "Survey Measurement of Probabilistic Macroeconomic Expectations: Progress and Promise," NBER Macroeconomics Annual, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(1), pages 411-471.
    8. Paiella, Monica, 2016. "Financial literacy and subjective expectations questions: A validation exercise," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 360-374.
    9. repec:wly:jforec:v:36:y:2017:i:7:p:756-775 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Olympia Bover, 2015. "Measuring expectations from household surveys: new results on subjective probabilities of future house prices," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 6(4), pages 361-405, November.
    11. Fabian Gouret, 2017. "What can we learn from the fifties?," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(7), pages 756-775, November.
    12. Agarwal, Sandip Kumar, 2017. "Subjective beliefs and decision making under uncertainty in the field," ISU General Staff Papers 201701010800006248, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    13. Maurizio Bovi, 2014. "Shocks and the Expectations Formation Process. A Tale of Two Expectations," Natural Field Experiments 00390, The Field Experiments Website.

    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:wly:japmet:v:26:y:2011:i:3:p:371-392. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://www.interscience.wiley.com/jpages/0883-7252/ .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.