Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-dlb68 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T18:14:44.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Belief elicitation in experiments: is there a hedging problem?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Mariana Blanco ,
Dirk Engelmann ,
Alexander K. Koch  and
Hans-Theo Normann
Mariana Blanco*
Affiliation:
Economics Department, Universidad del Rosario, Calle 14 No. 4-80, Bogotá, Colombia
Dirk Engelmann*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Mannheim, L7, 3-5, 68131 Mannheim, Germany Centre for Experimental Economics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark Economics Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic
Alexander K. Koch*
Affiliation:
School of Economics and Management, Aarhus University, Building 1322, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark
Hans-Theo Normann*
Affiliation:
Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE), Düsseldorf University, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany Max-Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn, Germany
*
e-mail: [email protected]
e-mail: [email protected]
e-mail: [email protected]
e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Belief-elicitation experiments usually reward accuracy of stated beliefs in addition to payments for other decisions. But this allows risk-averse subjects to hedge with their stated beliefs against adverse outcomes of the other decisions. So can we trust the existing belief-elicitation results? And can we avoid potential hedging confounds? We propose an experimental design that theoretically eliminates hedging opportunities. Using this design, we test for the empirical relevance of hedging effects in the lab. Our results suggest that hedging confounds are not a major problem unless hedging opportunities are very prominent. If hedging opportunities are transparent, and incentives to hedge are strong, many subjects do spot hedging opportunities and respond to them. The bias can go beyond players actually hedging themselves, because some expect others to hedge and best respond to this.

Keywords

Belief elicitationHedgingExperimental economicsExperimental methodology

JEL classification

C90: General C72: Noncooperative Games
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 412 - 438
Copyright
Copyright © Economic Science Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi: 10.1007/s10683-010-9249-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Allen, F. (1987). Discovering personal probabilities when utility functions are unknown. Management Science, 33(4), 542–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, S., Fountain, J., Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2009). Estimating subjective probabilities (Working Paper 09-01). University of Central Florida.Google Scholar
Armantier, O., & Treich, N. (2009). Subjective probabilities in games: an application to the overbidding puzzle. International Economic Review, 50(4), 1079–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barberis, N., & Thaler, R. (2003). A survey of behavioral finance. In Constantinides, G., Harris, M., & Stulz, R. M. (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of finance (Vol. 1, pp. 1053–1128). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Chap. 18.Google Scholar
Beattie, J., & Loomes, G. (1997). The impact of incentives upon risky choice experiments. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14(2), 155–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berninghaus, S., Güth, W., Levati, M. V., & Qiu, J. (2010, in press). Satisficing in sales competition: experimental evidence. International Journal of Game Theory.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhattacharya, S., & Pfleiderer, P. (1985). Delegated portfolio management. Journal of Economic Theory, 36(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanco, M., Engelmann, D., & Normann, H.-T. (2007). A Within-subject analysis of other-regarding preferences (Working Paper). Royal Holloway, University of London.Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
Bolle, F., & Ockenfels, P. (1990). Prisoners’ dilemma as a game with incomplete information. Journal of Economic Psychology, 11(1), 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, G. E., & Ockenfels, A. (2000). ERC: a theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. American Economic Review, 90(1), 166–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brier, G. W. (1950). Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability. Monthly Weather Review, 78, 1–3.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(3), 817–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, K., & Sefton, M. (2001). The sequential prisoner's dilemma: evidence on reciprocation. Economic Journal, 111(468), 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa-Gomes, M. A., & Weizsäcker, G. (2008). Stated beliefs and play in normal-form games. Review of Economic Studies, 75(3), 729–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dufwenberg, M., & Kirchsteiger, G. (2004). A theory of sequential reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 47(2), 268–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eichberger, J., Kelsey, D., & Schipper, B. (2008). Granny versus game theorist: ambiguity in experimental games. Theory and Decision, 64(2), 333–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75(4), 643669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelmann, D., & Strobel, M. (2004). Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments. American Economic Review, 94(4), 857–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A., & Fischbacher, U. (2006). A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 54(2), 293315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Fischbacher, U. (2007). Z-tree—Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, D., & Sunder, S. (2004). Risky curves: from unobservable utility to observable opportunity sets (Mimeo).Google Scholar
Gächter, S., & Renner, E. (2010, in press). The effects of (incentivized) belief elicitation in public good experiments. Experimental Economics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (1989). Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 18(2), 141–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greiner, B. (2004). An online recruitment system for economic experiments. In Kremer, K., & Macho, V. (Eds.), Forschung und wissenschaftliches Rechnen 2003. GWDG Bericht 63 (pp. 79–93). Göttingen: Ges. für Wiss. Datenverarbeitung.Google Scholar
Haruvy, E., Lahav, Y, & Noussair, C. N. (2007). Traders’ expectations in asset markets: experimental evidence. American Economic Review, 97(5), 1901–1920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertwig, R., & Ortmann, A. (2001). Experimental practices in economics: a methodological challenge for psychologists? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 383–451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holt, C. A. (1986a). Preference reversals and the independence axiom. American Economic Review, 76(3), 508–515.Google Scholar
Holt, C. A. (1986b). Scoring-rule procedures for eliciting subjective probability and utility functions. In Goel, P., & Zellner, A. (Eds.), Bayesian Inference and Decision Techniques (pp. 279–290). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644–1655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaac, R. M., & James, D. (2000). Just who are you calling risk averse? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 20(2), 177–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadane, J. B., & Winkler, R. L. (1988). Separating probability elicitation from utilities. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(402), 357–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karni, E. (1999). Elicitation of subjective probabilities when preferences are state-dependent. International Economic Review, 40(2), 479–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karni, E. (2009). A mechanism for eliciting probabilities. Econometrica, 77(2), 603–606.Google Scholar
Karni, E., & Safra, Z. (1995). The impossibility of experimental elicitation of subjective probabilities. Theory and Decision, 38(3), 313–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manski, C. F. (2004). Measuring expectations. Econometrica, 72(5), 1329–1376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyarko, Y., & Schotter, A. (2002). An experimental study of belief learning using elicited beliefs. Econometrica, 70(3), 971–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Offerman, T., Sonnemans, J., & Schram, A. (1996). Value orientations, expectations and voluntary contributions in public goods. Economic Journal, 106(437), 817–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rey-Biel, P. (2009). Equilibrium play and best response to (stated) beliefs in normal form games. Games and Economic Behavior, 65(2), 572–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, L. J. (1971). Elicitation of personal probabilities and expectations. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 66(336), 783–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlag, K. H. (2010). New and old results not only for experimental game theory (Mimeo). Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Schlag, K. H., & van der Weele, J. (2009). Eliciting probabilities, means, medians, variances and covariances without assuming risk neutrality? (Mimeo). Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Selten, R. (1998). Axiomatic characterization of the quadratic scoring rule. Experimental Economics, 1(1), 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, N. T., & Feltovich, N. (2000). Thinking like a game theorist: comment (Mimeo). University of Houston.Google Scholar
Winkler, R. L., & Murphy, A. H. (1970). Nonlinear utility and the probability score. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 9(1), 143–148.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Blanco et al. supplementary material

Belief elicitation in experiments: Is there a hedging problem? (Appendix)
Download Blanco et al. supplementary material(File)
File 394.1 KB