IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sef/csefwp/512.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Unobserved Heterogeneity in Structural Behavioral Models Using Experimental Data

Author

Listed:

Abstract

In this paper we compare a mixed logit model (MLM) and a latent class model (LCM) in the context of behavioral structural estimation using experimental data. By providing an instrument to deal with the intrinsic unobserved heterogeneity that characterizes experimental data, these alternative models have clear advantages compared with a multinomial logit model (MNL) typically used in structural estimation of behavioral models. We carry out our exercise by using experimental data that allows us estimation of distributional parameters related to risk and social preferences. Somehow coherently with the economic theory, the LCM identifies three classes of subjects (risk/ineq. lovers, risk/ineq. neutral, risk/ineq. averse). Moreover, estimates from both MLM and LCM somehow confirm the findings from a MNL model, that under the veil of ignorance (VOI) subjects’ variance aversion mostly reflects risk, rather than distributional concerns. By taking unobserved heterogeneity adequately into account in the estimation of our structural behavioral model, also provides new insights into individual behavior on the interplay between risk and inequality concerns. For example, we find that there is much more variability in individual behavior when subjects face pure inequality than under VOI. Moreover, in the case of pure inequality subjects are also more likely to be inequality lovers than under VOI.

Suggested Citation

  • Giovanni Ponti & Claudio Rossetti, 2018. "Unobserved Heterogeneity in Structural Behavioral Models Using Experimental Data," CSEF Working Papers 512, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
  • Handle: RePEc:sef:csefwp:512
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.csef.it/WP/wp512.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lee, Lung-Fei, 1992. "On Efficiency of Methods of Simulated Moments and Maximum Simulated Likelihood Estimation of Discrete Response Models," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(04), pages 518-552, December.
    2. Charles Bellemare & Sabine Kröger & Arthur van Soest, 2008. "Measuring Inequity Aversion in a Heterogeneous Population Using Experimental Decisions and Subjective Probabilities," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(4), pages 815-839, July.
    3. Antonio Cabrales & Raffaele Miniaci & Marco Piovesan & Giovanni Ponti, 2010. "Social Preferences and Strategic Uncertainty: An Experiment on Markets and Contracts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(5), pages 2261-2278, December.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, December.
    5. Gourieroux, Christian & Monfort, Alain, 1997. "Simulation-based Econometric Methods," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198774754.
    6. James Andreoni & John Miller, 2002. "Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 737-753, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Unobserved heterogeneity; Structural behavioral models; Social preferences; Risk preferences.;

    JEL classification:

    • D86 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Economics of Contract Law
    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities

    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:sef:csefwp:512. 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: (Lia Ambrosio). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/cssalit.html .

    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.