IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lau/crdeep/16.20.html

How Do Beliefs about Skill Affect Risky Decisions?

Author

Listed:
  • Adrian Bruhin
  • Luis Santos-Pinto
  • David Staubli

Abstract

Beliefs about relative skill matter for risky decisions such as career choices, market entry, and financial investments. Yet in most laboratory experiments risk is exogenously given and beliefs about relative skill play no role. We use a laboratory experiment free of strategy confounds to isolate the impact of beliefs about relative skill on risky choices. We find that low (high) skill individuals are more (less) willing to take risks on gambles with probabilities depending on relative skill than on gambles with exogenously given probabilities. Additionally, the correlation between stated and revealed beliefs -- beliefs estimated from choices -- is only moderate, suggesting that relying exclusively on stated beliefs may be misleading.

Suggested Citation

  • Adrian Bruhin & Luis Santos-Pinto & David Staubli, 2016. "How Do Beliefs about Skill Affect Risky Decisions?," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 16.20, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie.
    • Handle: RePEc:lau:crdeep:16.20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hec.unil.ch/attachments/deep/series/2016/16.20.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Barron, Kai & Gravert, Christina, 2022. "Confidence and career choices: an experiment," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 124(1), pages 35-68.
    2. Maren Baars & Michael Goedde‐Menke, 2022. "Ignorance illusion in decisions under risk: The impact of perceived expertise on probability weighting," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(1), pages 35-62, March.
    3. Stephen L. Cheung & Lachlan Johnstone, 2025. "True overconfidence, revealed through actions: An experiment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 70(2), pages 171-199, April.
    4. Cathleen Johnson & Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Zhihua Li & Dennie Dolder & Peter P. Wakker, 2021. "Prince: An improved method for measuring incentivized preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 1-28, February.
    5. Barron, Kai & Gravert, Christina, 2018. "Beliefs and actions: How a shift in confidence affects choices," MPRA Paper 84743, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Vincent Laferrière & David Staubli & Christian Thöni, 2023. "Explaining Excess Entry in Winner-Take-All Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(2), pages 1050-1069, February.
    7. Cédric Gutierrez & Thomas Åstebro & Tomasz Obloj, 2020. "The Impact of Overconfidence and Ambiguity Attitude on Market Entry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 308-329, March.
    8. Chen, Si & Schildberg-Hörisch, Hannah, 2019. "Looking at the bright side: The motivational value of confidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    9. David Boto-Garcìa & Alessandro Bucciol & Luca Zarri, 2020. "Managerial Beliefs and Firm Performance: Field Evidence from Professional Elite Soccer," Working Papers 19/2020, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    10. Marcus Sidki & Lara Boerger & David Boll, 2024. "The effect of board members’ education and experience on the financial performance of German state-owned enterprises," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 28(2), pages 445-482, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:lau:crdeep:16.20. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Christina Seld (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deelsch.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.