IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_8048.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Belief Elicitation: Limiting Truth Telling with Information on Incentives

Author

Listed:
  • David Danz
  • Lise Vesterlund
  • Alistair J. Wilson

Abstract

We study truth telling within the current state-of-the-art mechanism for belief elicitation and examine how information on incentives affects reports on a known objective prior. We find that transparent information on incentives gives rise to error rates in excess of 40 percent, and that only 15 percent of participants consistently report the truth. False reports are conservative and appear to result from a biased perception of the BSR incentives. While attempts to debias are somewhat successful, the highest degree of truth telling occurs when information on quantitative incentives is withheld. Perversely the mechanism’s incentives are shown to decrease truthful reporting.

Suggested Citation

  • David Danz & Lise Vesterlund & Alistair J. Wilson, 2020. "Belief Elicitation: Limiting Truth Telling with Information on Incentives," CESifo Working Paper Series 8048, CESifo.
    • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_8048
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp8048.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    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. Tanjim Hossain & Ryo Okui, 2013. "The Binarized Scoring Rule," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 80(3), pages 984-1001.
    3. Simon Gächter & Elke Renner, 2010. "The effects of (incentivized) belief elicitation in public goods experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(3), pages 364-377, September.
    4. Palfrey, Thomas R. & Wang, Stephanie W., 2009. "On eliciting beliefs in strategic games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 98-109, August.
    5. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Ahmed Driouchi & Olivier L’Haridon, 2011. "Risk aversion elicitation: reconciling tractability and bias minimization," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(1), pages 63-80, July.
    6. Masiliūnas, Aidas, 2017. "Overcoming coordination failure in a critical mass game: Strategic motives and action disclosure," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 214-251.
    7. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    8. Glenn W. Harrison & Richard D. Phillips, 2014. "Subjective Beliefs and Statistical Forecasts of Financial Risks: The Chief Risk Officer Project," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Torben Juul Andersen (ed.), Contemporary Challenges in Risk Management, chapter 7, pages 163-202, Palgrave Macmillan.
    9. Nisvan Erkal & Lata Gangadharan & Boon Han Koh, 2018. "By chance or by choice? Biased attribution of others’ outcomes," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 2040, The University of Melbourne.
    10. Marie-Pierre Dargnies & Rustamdjan Hakimov & Dorothea Kübler, 2019. "Self-Confidence and Unraveling in Matching Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(12), pages 5603-5618, December.
    11. David Bruner, 2009. "Changing the probability versus changing the reward," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(4), pages 367-385, December.
    12. Debrah Meloso & Salvatore Nunnari & Marco Ottaviani, 2023. "Looking into Crystal Balls: A Laboratory Experiment on Reputational Cheap Talk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(9), pages 5112-5127, September.
    13. Linda Babcock & Maria P. Recalde & Lise Vesterlund & Laurie Weingart, 2017. "Gender Differences in Accepting and Receiving Requests for Tasks with Low Promotability," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(3), pages 714-747, March.
    14. Robert G. Nelson & David A. Bessler, 1989. "Subjective Probabilities and Scoring Rules: Experimental Evidence," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(2), pages 363-369.
    15. Charles A. Holt & Angela M. Smith, 2016. "Belief Elicitation with a Synchronized Lottery Choice Menu That Is Invariant to Risk Attitudes," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 110-139, February.
    16. Hillenbrand, Adrian & Schmelzer, André, 2017. "Beyond information: Disclosure, distracted attention, and investor behavior," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 14-21.
    17. Wang, Stephanie W., 2011. "Incentive effects: The case of belief elicitation from individuals in groups," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 30-33, April.
    18. Drerup, Tilman & Enke, Benjamin & von Gaudecker, Hans-Martin, 2017. "The precision of subjective data and the explanatory power of economic models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 200(2), pages 378-389.
    19. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    20. Tanjim Hossain & Ryo Okui, 2019. "Belief Formation Under Signal Correlation," Working Paper Series no115, Institute of Economic Research, Seoul National University.
    21. Timothy N. Cason & Charles R. Plott, 2014. "Misconceptions and Game Form Recognition: Challenges to Theories of Revealed Preference and Framing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 122(6), pages 1235-1270.
    22. Zankiewicz, Christian & Schmidt, Tobias, 2016. "Binary Choice Belief Elicitation: An Adaptively Optimal Design," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145603, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    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. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Rasocha, Vlastimil, 2021. "Experimental methods: Eliciting beliefs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 234-256.
    2. Erkal, Nisvan & Gangadharan, Lata & Koh, Boon Han, 2020. "Replication: Belief elicitation with quadratic and binarized scoring rules," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    3. Folli, Dominik & Wolff, Irenaeus, 2022. "Biases in belief reports," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Tilman H. Drerup & Matthias Wibral & Christian Zimpelmann, 2023. "Skewness expectations and portfolio choice," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(1), pages 107-144, March.
    6. Dominik Bauer & Irenaeus Wolff, 2018. "Biases in Beliefs: Experimental Evidence," TWI Research Paper Series 109, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
    7. Bauer, Dominik & Wolff, Irenaeus, 2019. "Biases in Beliefs," VfS Annual Conference 2019 (Leipzig): 30 Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall - Democracy and Market Economy 203601, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    8. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    9. Lina Lozano & Ernesto Reuben, 2022. "Measuring Preferences for Competition," Working Papers 20220078, New York University Abu Dhabi, Department of Social Science, revised Aug 2022.
    10. Eyting, Markus & Schmidt, Patrick, 2021. "Belief elicitation with multiple point predictions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    11. Drerup, Tilman & Enke, Benjamin & von Gaudecker, Hans-Martin, 2017. "The precision of subjective data and the explanatory power of economic models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 200(2), pages 378-389.
    12. 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.
    13. Ingrid Burfurd & Tom Wilkening, 2022. "Cognitive heterogeneity and complex belief elicitation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(2), pages 557-592, April.
    14. Olga Shurchkov, 2013. "Coordination and learning in dynamic global games: experimental evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(3), pages 313-334, September.
    15. Sofianos, Andis, 2022. "Self-reported & revealed trust: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    16. 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.
    17. Corazzini, Luca & Galavotti, Stefano & Valbonesi, Paola, 2019. "An experimental study on sequential auctions with privately known capacities," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 289-315.
    18. Florian Engl & Arno Riedl & Roberto Weber, 2021. "Spillover Effects of Institutions on Cooperative Behavior, Preferences, and Beliefs," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(4), pages 261-299, November.
    19. Keser, Claudia & Markstädter, Andreas, 2014. "Informational asymmetries in laboratory asset markets with state-dependent fundamentals," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 207, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    20. Despoina Alempaki & Andrew M. Colman & Felix Kölle & Graham Loomes & Briony D. Pulford, 2022. "Investigating the failure to best respond in experimental games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(2), pages 656-679, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    incentive compatibility; belief elicitation; binarized scoring rule; experiments;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General

    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:ces:ceswps:_8048. 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: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    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.