Belief elicitation in experiments: Is there a hedging problem?

Experimental Economics

Volumn 13, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 412-438

  Blanco, Mariana ^a   Engelmann, Dirk ^b,c,d   Koch, Alexander K ^e   Normann, Hans Theo ^f,g  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO   (Colombia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANNHEIM   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^d Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic   (Czech Republic)

^e AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^f HEINRICH HEINE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^g MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH ON COLLECTIVE GOODS   (Germany)

Author keywords

Belief elicitation; Experimental economics; Experimental methodology; Hedging

Indexed keywords

EID: 78049441043     PISSN: 13864157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10683-010-9249-1     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Allen, F. (1987). Discovering personal probabilities when utility functions are unknown. Management Science, 33(4), 542-544.
2. Andersen, S., Fountain, J., Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2009). Estimating subjective probabilities (Working Paper 09-01). University of Central Florida.
3. Armantier, O., & Treich, N. (2009). Subjective probabilities in games: an application to the overbidding puzzle. International Economic Review, 50(4), 1079-1102.
4. Barberis, N., & Thaler, R. (2003). A survey of behavioral finance. In G. Constantinides, M. Harris, & R. M. Stulz (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of finance (Vol. 1, pp. 1053-1128). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Chap. 18.
5. Beattie, J., & Loomes, G. (1997). The impact of incentives upon risky choice experiments. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14(2), 155-68.
6. Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (2005). Risk preference instability across institutions: a dilemma. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 102(11), 4209-4214.
7. Berninghaus, S., Güth, W., Levati, M. V., & Qiu, J. (2010, in press). Satisficing in sales competition: experimental evidence. International Journal of Game Theory.
8. Bhatt, M., & Camerer, C. F. (2005). Self-referential thinking and equilibrium as states of mind in games: fMRI evidence. Games and Economic Behavior, 52(2), 424-459.
9. Bhattacharya, S., & Pfleiderer, P. (1985). Delegated portfolio management. Journal of Economic Theory, 36(1), 1-25.
10. Blanco, M., Engelmann, D., & Normann, H.-T. (2007). A Within-subject analysis of other-regarding preferences (Working Paper). Royal Holloway, University of London.
11. Blanco, M., Engelmann, D., Koch, A. K., & Normann, H.-T. (2008). Belief elicitation in experiments: is there a hedging problem? (Discussion Paper No. 3517). Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
12. Blanco, M., Engelmann, D., Koch, A. K., & Normann, H.-T. (2009). Preferences and beliefs in a sequential social dilemma: a within-subjects analysis (Discussion Paper No. 4624). Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
13. Bolle, F., & Ockenfels, P. (1990). Prisoners' dilemma as a game with incomplete information. Journal of Economic Psychology, 11(1), 69-84.
14. Bolton, G. E., & Ockenfels, A. (2000). ERC: a theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. American Economic Review, 90(1), 166-193.
15. Boschloo, R. D. (1970). Raised conditional level of significance for the 2×2-table when testing the equality of two probabilities. Statistica Neerlandica, 24, 1-35.
16. Brier, G. W. (1950). Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability. Monthly Weather Review, 78, 1-3.
17. Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(3), 817-869.
18. Clark, K., & Sefton, M. (2001). The sequential prisoner's dilemma: evidence on reciprocation. Economic Journal, 111(468), 51-68.
19. Costa-Gomes, M. A., & Weizsäcker, G. (2008). Stated beliefs and play in normal-form games. Review of Economic Studies, 75(3), 729-762.
20. Croson, R. T. A. (2000). Thinking like a game theorist: factors affecting the frequency of equilibrium play. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 41(3), 299-314.
21. Dufwenberg, M., & Kirchsteiger, G. (2004). A theory of sequential reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 47(2), 268-298.
22. Eichberger, J., Kelsey, D., & Schipper, B. (2008). Granny versus game theorist: ambiguity in experimental games. Theory and Decision, 64(2), 333-362.
23. Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75(4), 643-669.
24. Engelmann, D., & Strobel, M. (2004). Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments. American Economic Review, 94(4), 857-869.
25. Erev, I., Bornstein, G., & Wallsten, T. S. (1993). The negative effect of probability assessments on decision quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55(1), 78-94.
26. Falk, A., & Fischbacher, U. (2006). A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 54(2), 293-315.
27. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817-868.
28. Fehr, D., Kübler, D., & Danz, D. (2008). Information and beliefs in a repeated normal-form game (SFB 649, Discussion Paper 2008-026). Humboldt University, Berlin.
29. Fischbacher, U. (2007). Z-tree-Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171-178.
30. Friedman, D., & Sunder, S. (2004). Risky curves: from unobservable utility to observable opportunity sets (Mimeo).
31. Gächter, S., & Renner, E. (2010, in press). The effects of (incentivized) belief elicitation in public good experiments. Experimental Economics.
32. Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (1989). Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 18(2), 141-153.
33. Greiner, B. (2004). An online recruitment system for economic experiments. In K. Kremer, & V. Macho (Eds.), Forschung und wissenschaftliches Rechnen 2003. GWDG Bericht 63 (pp. 79-93). Göttingen: Ges. für Wiss. Datenverarbeitung.
34. Haruvy, E., Lahav, Y., & Noussair, C. N. (2007). Traders' expectations in asset markets: experimental evidence. American Economic Review, 97(5), 1901-1920.
35. Hertwig, R., & Ortmann, A. (2001). Experimental practices in economics: a methodological challenge for psychologists? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 383-451.
36. Holt, C. A. (1986a). Preference reversals and the independence axiom. American Economic Review, 76(3), 508-515.
37. Holt, C. A. (1986b). Scoring-rule procedures for eliciting subjective probability and utility functions. In P. Goel, & A. Zellner (Eds.), Bayesian Inference and Decision Techniques (pp. 279-290). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
38. Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644-1655.
39. Huck, S., & Weizsäcker, G. (2002). Do players correctly estimate what others do? Evidence of conservatism in beliefs. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 47(1), 71-85.
40. Isaac, R. M., & James, D. (2000). Just who are you calling risk averse? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 20(2), 177-87.
41. Kadane, J. B., & Winkler, R. L. (1988). Separating probability elicitation from utilities. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(402), 357-363.
42. Karni, E. (1999). Elicitation of subjective probabilities when preferences are state-dependent. International Economic Review, 40(2), 479-486.
43. Karni, E. (2009). A mechanism for eliciting probabilities. Econometrica, 77(2), 603-606.
44. Karni, E., & Safra, Z. (1995). The impossibility of experimental elicitation of subjective probabilities. Theory and Decision, 38(3), 313-320.
45. Manski, C. F. (2004). Measuring expectations. Econometrica, 72(5), 1329-1376.
46. Nyarko, Y., & Schotter, A. (2002). An experimental study of belief learning using elicited beliefs. Econometrica, 70(3), 971-1005.
47. Offerman, T., Sonnemans, J., & Schram, A. (1996). Value orientations, expectations and voluntary contributions in public goods. Economic Journal, 106(437), 817-45.
48. Offerman, T., Sonnemans, J., van de Kuilen, G., & Wakker, P. P. (2009). A truth-serum for non-Bayesians: correcting proper scoring rules for risk attitudes. Review of Economic Studies, 76(4), 1461-1489.
49. Rey-Biel, P. (2009). Equilibrium play and best response to (stated) beliefs in normal form games. Games and Economic Behavior, 65(2), 572-585.
50. Rutström, E. E., & Wilcox, N. T. (2009). Stated beliefs versus inferred beliefs: a methodological inquiry and experimental test. Games and Economic Behavior, 67(2), 616-632.
51. Savage, L. J. (1971). Elicitation of personal probabilities and expectations. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 66(336), 783-801.
52. Schlag, K. H. (2010). New and old results not only for experimental game theory (Mimeo). Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
53. Schlag, K. H., & van der Weele, J. (2009). Eliciting probabilities, means, medians, variances and covariances without assuming risk neutrality? (Mimeo). Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
54. Selten, R. (1998). Axiomatic characterization of the quadratic scoring rule. Experimental Economics, 1(1), 43-61.
55. Wilcox, N. T., & Feltovich, N. (2000). Thinking like a game theorist: comment (Mimeo). University of Houston.
56. Winkler, R. L., & Murphy, A. H. (1970). Nonlinear utility and the probability score. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 9(1), 143-148.