Bitte verwenden Sie diesen Link, um diese Publikation zu zitieren, oder auf sie als Internetquelle zu verweisen: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/208070
Autor:innen: 
Barron, Kai
Datum: 
2019
Schriftenreihe/Nr.: 
Discussion Paper No. 170
Verlag: 
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München und Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Collaborative Research Center Transregio 190 - Rationality and Competition, München und Berlin
Zusammenfassung: 
Bayes' statistical rule remains the status quo formodeling belief updating in both normative and descriptive models of behavior under uncertainty. Some recent research has questioned the use of Bayes' rule in descriptive models of behavior, presenting evidence that people overweight 'good news' relative to 'bad news' when updating ego-relevant beliefs. In this paper, we present experimental evidence testing whether this 'good-news, bad-news' effect is present in a financial decision making context (i.e. a domain that is important for understanding much economic decision making). We find no evidence of asymmetric updating in this domain. In contrast, in our experiment, belief updating is close to the Bayesian benchmark on average. However, we show that this average behavior masks substantial heterogeneity in individual updating behavior. We find no evidence in support of a sizeable subgroup of asymmetric updators.
Schlagwörter: 
economic experiments
Bayes' rule
belief updating
belief measurement
proper scoring rules
motivated beliefs
JEL: 
C11
C91
D83
Dokumentart: 
Working Paper

Datei(en):
Datei
Größe
1.63 MB





Publikationen in EconStor sind urheberrechtlich geschützt.