IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ajk/ajkdps/263.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Contingent Belief Updating

Author

Listed:
  • Chiara Aina

    (Department of Economics, Harvard University)

  • Andrea Amelio

    (Bonn Graduate School of Economics, University of Bonn)

  • Katharina Brütt

    (School of Business & Economics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

Abstract

We study how contingent thinking – that is, reasoning through all possible contingencies without knowing which is realized – affects belief updating. According to the Bayesian benchmark, beliefs updated after exposure to new information should be equivalent to beliefs assessed for the contingency of receiving such information. Using an experiment, we decompose the effect of contingent thinking on belief updating into two components: (1) hypothetical thinking (updating on a piece of not-yet-observed information) and (2) contrast reasoning (comparing multiple contingencies during the updating process). Our results show that contingent thinking increases deviations from Bayesian updating and that this effect can be attributed to hypothetical thinking.

Suggested Citation

  • Chiara Aina & Andrea Amelio & Katharina Brütt, 2023. "Contingent Belief Updating," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 263, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:ajk:ajkdps:263
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econtribute.de/RePEc/ajk/ajkdps/ECONtribute_263_2023.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2023
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oechssler, Jörg & Roider, Andreas & Schmitz, Patrick W., 2009. "Cognitive abilities and behavioral biases," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 147-152, October.
    2. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Ernst Fehr & Nick Netzer, 2021. "Time Will Tell: Recovering Preferences When Choices Are Noisy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(6), pages 1828-1877.
    3. S. Nageeb Ali & Maximilian Mihm & Lucas Siga & Chloe Tergiman, 2021. "Adverse and Advantageous Selection in the Laboratory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(7), pages 2152-2178, July.
    4. Jeannette Brosig & Joachim Weimann & Chun-Lei Yang, 2003. "The Hot Versus Cold Effect in a Simple Bargaining Experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(1), pages 75-90, June.
    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. Sérgio Almeida De Sousa & Marcos De Almeida Rangel, 2014. "Do As I Do, Not As I Say: Incentivization And The Relationship Between Cognitive Ability And Riskaversion," Anais do XL Encontro Nacional de Economia [Proceedings of the 40th Brazilian Economics Meeting] 126, ANPEC - Associação Nacional dos Centros de Pós-Graduação em Economia [Brazilian Association of Graduate Programs in Economics].
    2. Fischbacher, Urs & Gächter, Simon & Quercia, Simone, 2012. "The behavioral validity of the strategy method in public good experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 897-913.
    3. Danila Serra, 2012. "Combining Top-Down and Bottom-Up Accountability: Evidence from a Bribery Experiment," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(3), pages 569-587, August.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:5:p:591-604 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Marco Cipriani & Antonio Guarino, 2009. "Herd Behavior in Financial Markets: An Experiment with Financial Market Professionals," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 7(1), pages 206-233, March.
    6. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Garagnani, Michele, 2020. "The cognitive foundations of cooperation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 71-85.
    7. Lammers, Frauke & Schiller, Jörg, 2010. "Contract design and insurance fraud: An experimental investigation," FZID Discussion Papers 19-2010, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    8. M. Bigoni & D. Dragone, 2011. "An experiment on experimental instructions," Working Papers wp794, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    9. Ritika & Nawal Kishor, 2020. "Development and validation of behavioral biases scale: a SEM approach," Review of Behavioral Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 14(2), pages 237-259, November.
    10. Benjamin Enke & Florian Zimmermann, 2019. "Correlation Neglect in Belief Formation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(1), pages 313-332.
    11. 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.
    12. McElroy, Todd & Dickinson, David L., 2010. "Thoughtful days and valenced nights: How much will you think about the problem?," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(7), pages 516-523, December.
    13. Carrillo, Juan D. & Palfrey, Thomas R., 2011. "No trade," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 66-87, January.
    14. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Georg D. Granic, 2023. "Does choice change preferences? An incentivized test of the mere choice effect," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(3), pages 499-521, July.
    15. Brice Corgnet & Mark Desantis & David Porter, 2018. "What Makes a Good Trader? On the Role of Intuition and Reflection on Trader Performance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 73(3), pages 1113-1137, June.
    16. David Hason Rudd & Huan Huo & Md. Rafiqul Islam & Guandong Xu, 2023. "Churn Prediction via Multimodal Fusion Learning: Integrating Customer Financial Literacy, Voice, and Behavioral Data [Prédiction du churn par apprentissage fusionné multimodal : intégration de la l," Post-Print hal-04320145, HAL.
    17. Neyse, Levent & Fossen, Frank M. & Johannesson, Magnus & Dreber, Anna, 2023. "Cognitive reflection and 2D:4D: Evidence from a large population sample," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 209(C), pages 288-307.
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:1:p:99-113 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Hügelschäfer, Sabine, 2016. "Faith in intuition and cognitive reflection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 61-70.
    20. Piotr Evdokimov & Umberto Garfagnini, 2023. "Cognitive Ability and Perceived Disagreement in Learning," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 381, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    21. Ciril Bosch-Rosa & Thomas Meissner & Antoni Bosch-Domènech, 2018. "Cognitive bubbles," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 132-153, March.
    22. Christian Korth & J. Philipp Reiß, 2014. "Vacuous Information Affects Bargaining," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 921-936, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Belief Updating; Contingent Thinking; Experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making

    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:ajk:ajkdps:263. 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: ECONtribute Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.econtribute.de .

    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.