IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2506.22649.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Entropy Regularized Belief Reporting

Author

Listed:
  • Elchin Suleymanov

Abstract

This paper investigates a model of partition dependence, a widely reported experimental finding where the agent's reported beliefs depend on how the states are grouped. In the model, called Entropy Regularized Belief Reporting (ERBR), the agent is endowed with a latent benchmark prior that is unobserved by the analyst. When presented with a partition, the agent reports a prior that minimizes Kullback-Leibler divergence from the latent benchmark prior subject to entropy regularization. This captures the intuition that while the agent would like to report a prior that is close to her latent benchmark prior, she may also have a preference to remain noncommittal. I axiomatically characterize the model and apply it to the experimental data from Benjamin et al. (2017).

Suggested Citation

  • Elchin Suleymanov, 2025. "Entropy Regularized Belief Reporting," Papers 2506.22649, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2506.22649
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.22649
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel J. Benjamin & Matthew Rabin & Collin Raymond, 2016. "A Model of Nonbelief in the Law of Large Numbers," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 14(2), pages 515-544.
    2. Craig R. Fox & Robert T. Clemen, 2005. "Subjective Probability Assessment in Decision Analysis: Partition Dependence and Bias Toward the Ignorance Prior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(9), pages 1417-1432, September.
    3. Daniel J. Benjamin & Don A. Moore & Matthew Rabin, 2017. "Biased Beliefs About Random Samples: Evidence from Two Integrated Experiments," NBER Working Papers 23927, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Camerer, Colin F, 1987. "Do Biases in Probability Judgment Matter in Markets? Experimental Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(5), pages 981-997, December.
    5. Little, Andrew T., 2022. "Information Theory and Biased Beliefs," OSF Preprints vfqy2, Center for Open Science.
    6. Johnson, Eric J & Hershey, John & Meszaros, Jacqueline & Kunreuther, Howard, 1993. "Framing, Probability Distortions, and Insurance Decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 35-51, August.
    7. Robert T. Clemen & Canan Ulu, 2008. "Interior Additivity and Subjective Probability Assessment of Continuous Variables," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(4), pages 835-851, April.
    8. repec:osf:osfxxx:vfqy2_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. David S. Ahn & Haluk Ergin, 2010. "Framing Contingencies," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(2), pages 655-695, 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. Daniel J. Benjamin, 2018. "Errors in Probabilistic Reasoning and Judgment Biases," NBER Working Papers 25200, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Little, Andrew T., 2022. "Information Theory and Biased Beliefs," OSF Preprints vfqy2, Center for Open Science.
    3. Robert F. Bordley, 2009. "Combining the Opinions of Experts Who Partition Events Differently," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 38-46, March.
    4. Zhao, Xiaojian, 2011. "Framing contingencies in contracts," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 31-40, January.
    5. Eric Johnson & Suzanne Shu & Benedict Dellaert & Craig Fox & Daniel Goldstein & Gerald Häubl & Richard Larrick & John Payne & Ellen Peters & David Schkade & Brian Wansink & Elke Weber, 2012. "Beyond nudges: Tools of a choice architecture," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 487-504, June.
    6. Leigh Anderson & Kostas G. Stamoulis, 2006. "Applying Behavioural Economics to International Development Policy," WIDER Working Paper Series RP2006-24, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    7. López-Pérez, Raúl & Rodriguez-Moral, Antonio & Vorsatz, Marc, 2021. "Simplified mental representations as a cause of overprecision," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    8. Sarah K. Jacobi & Benjamin F. Hobbs, 2007. "Quantifying and Mitigating the Splitting Bias and Other Value Tree-Induced Weighting Biases," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 194-210, December.
    9. Botzen, W.J.W. & van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., 2012. "Risk attitudes to low-probability climate change risks: WTP for flood insurance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 151-166.
    10. He, Xue Dong & Xiao, Di, 2017. "Processing consistency in non-Bayesian inference," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 90-104.
    11. Weber, Martin & Keppe, Hans-Jurgen & Meyer-Delius, Gabriela, 2000. "The impact of endowment framing on market prices -- an experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 159-176, February.
    12. Eyting, Markus & Schmidt, Patrick, 2021. "Belief elicitation with multiple point predictions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    13. Anastasia Burkovskaya & Adam Teperski & Kadir Atalay, 2022. "Framing and insurance choices," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(2), pages 311-337, June.
    14. Wiebke Roß & Jens Weghake, 2018. "Wa(h)re Liebe: Was Online-Dating-Plattformen über zweiseitige Märkte lehren," TUC Working Papers in Economics 0017, Abteilung für Volkswirtschaftslehre, Technische Universität Clausthal (Department of Economics, Technical University Clausthal).
    15. 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.
    16. Xiao Lin, 2020. "Feeling Is Believing? Evidence From Earthquake Shaking Experience and Insurance Demand," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 87(2), pages 351-380, June.
    17. 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.
    18. Burkhard Schipper, 2013. "Awareness-dependent subjective expected utility," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 42(3), pages 725-753, August.
    19. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    20. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2023. "Designing Information Provision Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 3-40, March.

    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:arx:papers:2506.22649. 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.