IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Higher-order Beliefs in Simple Trading Models


  • Timothy Shields

    () (Argyros School of Business and Economics, Chapman University, USA)

  • Baohua Xin

    () (Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Canada)


We examine the role of higher order beliefs in asset markets where coordination between a buyer and seller can lead to gains to trade. The scenarios are modeled such that trader’s strategies do not only depend upon their beliefs of underlying economic phenomena, but also upon the others’ beliefs regarding the beliefs of themselves. Under certain parameters the breakdown of coordination is predicted–even when both traders are certain the underlying phenomena dictates trade is advantageous. We demonstrate the equilibrium predictions can be constructed via a small number of iterated thought exercises. The experimental design allows us to control for various behavioral phenomena and examine subjects’ decisions across different accounting regimes as to tease out strategic uncertainty due solely to information asymmetry. In this setting we find evidence supporting higher order beliefs. An implication is that the lack of uniformity leads to lack of common knowledge of the beliefs of others, which in turn leads to the spreading of inefficient outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Timothy Shields & Baohua Xin, 2012. "Higher-order Beliefs in Simple Trading Models," Working Papers 12-18, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
  • Handle: RePEc:chu:wpaper:12-18

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Philippe Bacchetta & Eric Van Wincoop, 2008. "Higher Order Expectations in Asset Pricing," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 40(5), pages 837-866, August.
    2. Dilip Abreu & Markus K. Brunnermeier, 2003. "Bubbles and Crashes," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(1), pages 173-204, January.
    3. Espahbodi, Hassan & Espahbodi, Pouran & Rezaee, Zabihollah & Tehranian, Hassan, 2002. "Stock price reaction and value relevance of recognition versus disclosure: the case of stock-based compensation," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 343-373, August.
    4. Stephen Morris & Hyun Song Shin, 2012. "Contagious Adverse Selection," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(1), pages 1-21, January.
    5. Subramanyam, K. R., 1996. "The pricing of discretionary accruals," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1-3), pages 249-281, October.
    6. repec:bla:joares:v:34:y:1996:i::p:21-32 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Colin F. Camerer & Teck-Hua Ho & Juin-Kuan Chong, 2004. "A Cognitive Hierarchy Model of Games," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 119(3), pages 861-898.
    8. Philippe Bacchetta & Eric Van Wincoop, 2006. "Can Information Heterogeneity Explain the Exchange Rate Determination Puzzle?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(3), pages 552-576, June.
    9. Verrecchia, Robert E., 2001. "Essays on disclosure," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-3), pages 97-180, December.
    10. Stephen Morris & Hyun Song Shin & Hui Tong, 2006. "Social Value of Public Information: Morris and Shin (2002) Is Actually Pro-Transparency, Not Con: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(1), pages 453-455, March.
    11. Nagel, Rosemarie, 1995. "Unraveling in Guessing Games: An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1313-1326, December.
    12. Franklin Allen & Stephen Morris & Hyun Song Shin, 2006. "Beauty Contests and Iterated Expectations in Asset Markets," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 19(3), pages 719-752.
    13. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    information asymmetry; experiment; strategic uncertainty; higher-order beliefs; iterative reasoning;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:chu:wpaper:12-18. 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: (Megan Luetje). General contact details of provider: .

    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.