IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2311.13394.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Belief identification by proxy

Author

Listed:
  • Elias Tsakas

Abstract

It is well known that individual beliefs cannot be identified using traditional choice data, unless we exogenously assume state-independent utilities. In this paper, I propose a novel methodology that solves this long-standing identification problem in a simple way. This method relies on the extending the state space by introducing a proxy, for which the agent has no stakes conditional on the original state space. The latter allows us to identify the agent's conditional beliefs about the proxy given each state realization, which in turn suffices for indirectly identifying her beliefs about the original state space. This approach is analogous to the one of instrumental variables in econometrics. Similarly to instrumental variables, the appeal of this method comes from the flexibility in selecting a proxy.

Suggested Citation

  • Elias Tsakas, 2023. "Belief identification by proxy," Papers 2311.13394, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2311.13394
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.13394
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Schotter & Isabel Trevino, 2014. "Belief Elicitation in the Laboratory," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 103-128, August.
    2. Feddersen, Timothy & Pesendorfer, Wolfgang, 1998. "Convicting the Innocent: The Inferiority of Unanimous Jury Verdicts under Strategic Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(1), pages 23-35, March.
    3. Philip J. Cook & Daniel A. Graham, 1977. "The Demand for Insurance and Protection: The Case of Irreplaceable Commodities," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 91(1), pages 143-156.
    4. Fishburn, Peter C, 1973. "A Mixture-Set Axiomatization of Conditional Subjective Expected Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(1), pages 1-25, January.
    5. Jaffray, Jean-Yves & Karni, Edi, 1999. "Elicitation of Subjective Probabilities When the Initial Endowment is Unobservable," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 5-20, April.
    6. Chew, Soo Hong & Wang, Wenqian, 2020. "On the robustness of indeterminacy in subjective probability," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    7. Jay Lu, 2019. "Bayesian Identification: A Theory for State-Dependent Utilities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(9), pages 3192-3228, September.
    8. Dreze, Jacques H. & Rustichini, Aldo, 1999. "Moral hazard and conditional preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 159-181, March.
    9. Roland Bénabou, 2015. "The Economics of Motivated Beliefs," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 125(5), pages 665-685.
    10. James Andreoni, 1991. "Reasonable Doubt and the Optimal Magnitude of Fines: Should the Penalty Fit the Crime?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 22(3), pages 385-395, Autumn.
    11. Edi Karni & David Schmeidler, 2016. "An expected utility theory for state-dependent preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(4), pages 467-478, November.
    12. Karni, Edi & Schmeidler, David & Vind, Karl, 1983. "On State Dependent Preferences and Subjective Probabilities," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(4), pages 1021-1031, July.
    13. Theo Offerman & Joep Sonnemans & Gijs Van De Kuilen & Peter P. Wakker, 2009. "A Truth Serum for Non-Bayesians: Correcting Proper Scoring Rules for Risk Attitudes ," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(4), pages 1461-1489.
    14. Charles F. Manski, 2004. "Measuring Expectations," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(5), pages 1329-1376, September.
    15. Karni, Edi, 1992. "Subjective Probabilities and Utility with Even-Dependent Preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 107-125, May.
    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. Elias Tsakas, 2022. "Belief identification with state-dependent utilities," Papers 2203.10505, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2022.
    2. Elias Tsakas, 2021. "Identification of misreported beliefs," Papers 2112.12975, arXiv.org.
    3. Edi Karni & David Schmeidler, 2016. "An expected utility theory for state-dependent preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(4), pages 467-478, November.
    4. Tsakas, Elias, 2016. "Reasonable doubt revisited," Research Memorandum 017, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    5. Tsakas, Elias, 2018. "Robust scoring rules," Research Memorandum 023, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    6. Armantier, Olivier & Treich, Nicolas, 2013. "Eliciting beliefs: Proper scoring rules, incentives, stakes and hedging," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 17-40.
    7. Crosetto, Paolo & Filippin, Antonio & Katuščák, Peter & Smith, John, 2020. "Central tendency bias in belief elicitation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    8. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Rasocha, Vlastimil, 2021. "Experimental methods: Eliciting beliefs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 234-256.
    9. 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.
    10. Karl Schlag & James Tremewan, 2021. "Simple belief elicitation: An experimental evaluation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(2), pages 137-155, April.
    11. Hamed Hamze Bajgiran & Houman Owhadi, 2021. "Aggregation of Models, Choices, Beliefs, and Preferences," Papers 2111.11630, arXiv.org.
    12. Karni, Edi, 2007. "Foundations of Bayesian theory," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 167-188, January.
    13. Tsakas, Elias, 2020. "Robust scoring rules," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 15(3), July.
    14. Li Hao & Daniel Houser, 2012. "Belief elicitation in the presence of naïve respondents: An experimental study," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 161-180, April.
    15. DREZE , Jacques H. & RUSTICHINI, Aldo, 2000. "State-dependent utility and decision theory," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2000007, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    16. Burdea, Valeria & Woon, Jonathan, 2022. "Online belief elicitation methods," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    17. Markus Eyting & Patrick Schmidt, 2019. "Belief Elicitation with Multiple Point Predictions," Working Papers 1818, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, revised 16 Nov 2020.
    18. Karl Schlag & James Tremewan & Joël Weele, 2015. "A penny for your thoughts: a survey of methods for eliciting beliefs," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 457-490, September.
    19. Eyting, Markus & Schmidt, Patrick, 2021. "Belief elicitation with multiple point predictions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    20. Edi Karni & Philippe Mongin, 2000. "On the Determination of Subjective Probability by Choices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 233-248, February.

    More about this item

    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:arx:papers:2311.13394. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.