Element contents
Estimation of Structural Models Using Experimental Data From the Lab and the Field
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 January 2023
Summary
Behavioral economics provides a rich set of explicit models of non-classical preferences and belief formation which can be used to estimate structural models of decision making. At the same time, experimental approaches allow the researcher to exogenously vary components of the decision making environment. The synergies between behavioral and experimental economics provide a natural setting for the estimation of structural models. This Element will cover examples supporting the following arguments 1) Experimental data allows the researcher to estimate structural models under weaker assumptions and can simplify their estimation, 2) many popular models in behavioral economics can be estimated without any programming skills using existing software, 3) experimental methods are useful to validate structural models. This Element aims to facilitate adoption of structural modelling by providing Stata codes to replicate some of the empirical illustrations that are presented. Examples covered include estimation of outcome-based preferences, belief-dependent preferences and risk preferences.
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781009362627Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 09 February 2023
References
Abdellaoui, M. (2000). “Parameter-free elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions,” Management Science, 46(11), 1497–1512.Google Scholar
Delavande, Adeline and van der Klaauw, Wilbert and Winter, Joachim and Zafar, Basit (2022). Introduction to the Journal of Econometrics Annals Issue on “Subjective Expectations and Probabilities in Economics,” Journal of Econometrics, 231(1), 1–2.Google Scholar
Ahn, D., Choi, S., Gale, D., and Kariv, S. (2014). “Estimating ambiguity aversion in a portfolio choice experiment,” Quantitative Economics, 5(2), 195–223.Google Scholar
Akerlof, G. A. (1982). “Labor contracts as partial gift exchange,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 97(4), 543–569.Google Scholar
Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., and Rutström, E. E. (2008). “Eliciting risk and time preferences,” Econometrica, 76(3), 583–618.Google Scholar
Andreoni, J., and Miller, J. (2002). “Giving according to GARP, an experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism,” Econometrica, 70, 737–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apesteguia, J., and Ballester, M. A. (2018). “Monotone stochastic choice models: The case of risk and time preferences,” Journal of Political Economy, 126(1), 74–106.Google Scholar
Baillon, A., and Bleichrodt, H. (2015). “Testing ambiguity models through the measurement of probabilities for gains and losses,” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 7(2), 77–100.Google Scholar
Bajari, P., and Hortacsu, A. (2005). “Are structural estimates of auction models reasonable? Evidence from experimental data,” Journal of Political Economy, 113(4), 703–741.Google Scholar
Bardsley, N., and Moffatt, P. G. (2007). “The experimetrics of public goods: Inferring motivations from contributions,” Theory and Decision, 62(2), 161–193.Google Scholar
Barsky, R. B., Juster, F. T., Kimball, M. S., and Shapiro, M. D. (1997). “Preference parameters and behavioral heterogeneity: An experimental approach in the health and retirement study,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 537–579.Google Scholar
Batley, R. (2008). “On ordinal utility, cardinal utility and random utility,” Theory and Decision, 64(1), 37–63.Google Scholar
Battigalli, P., and Dufwenberg, M. (2007). “Guilt in games,” American Economic Review, 97(2), 170–176.Google Scholar
Battigalli, P., and Dufwenberg, M. (2022). “Belief-dependent motivations and psychological game theory,” Journal of Economic Literature, 60(3), 833–882.Google Scholar
Bauer, D., and Wol, I. (2018). “Biases in beliefs: Experimental evidence,” TWI Research Paper Series, No. 109.Google Scholar
Bellemare, C., Bissonnette, L., and Kröger, S. (2010). “Bounding preference parameters under different assumptions about beliefs: A partial identification approach,” Experimental Economics, 13(3), 334–345.Google Scholar
Bellemare, C., Bissonnette, L., and Kröger, S. (2012). “Flexible approximation of subjective expectations using probability questions,” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 30, 125–131.Google Scholar
Bellemare, C., Kröger, S., and Sossou, K. M. (2018). “Reporting probabilistic expectations with dynamic uncertainty about possible distributions,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 57(2), 153–176.Google Scholar
Bellemare, C., Kröger, S., and Sossou, K. M. (2020). “Optimal frequency of portfolio evaluation in a choice experiment with ambiguity and loss aversion,” Journal of Econometrics Vol. 231, Issue 1, November 2022, 248–264.Google Scholar
Bellemare, C., Kröger, S., and van Soest, A. (2008a). “Measuring inequity aversion in a heterogeneous population using experimental decisions and subjective probabilities,” Econometrica, 76, 815–839.Google Scholar
Bellemare, C., Kröger, S., and van Soest, A. (2008b). “Preferences, intentions, and expectations violations: A large-scale experiment with a representative subject pool,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 78, 349–365.Google Scholar
Bellemare, C., and Sebald, A. (2022). “Measuring belief-dependent preferences without data on beliefs,” Review of Economic Studies, forthcoming 0034–6527, https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdac023.Google Scholar
Bellemare, C., Sebald, A., and Strobel, M. (2008). “Measuring the willingness to pay to avoid guilt: Estimation using equilibrium and stated belief models,” Journal of Applied Econometrics, 26, 437–453.Google Scholar
Bellemare, C., Sebald, A., and Suetens, S. (2017). “A note on testing guilt aversion,” Games and Economic Behavior, 102, 233–239.Google Scholar
Bellemare, C., Sebald, A., and Suetens, S. (2018). “Heterogeneous guilt sensitivities and incentive effects,” Experimental Economics, 21(2), 316–336.Google Scholar
Bellemare, C., and Shearer, B. (2009). “Gift giving and worker productivity: Evidence from a firm level experiment,” Games and Economic Behavior, 67, 233–244.Google Scholar
Bellemare, C., and Shearer, B. (2011). “On the relevance and composition of gifts within the firm: Evidence from field experiments,” International Economic Review, 52, 855–882.Google Scholar
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., and McCabe, K. (1995). “Trust, reciprocity, and social history,” Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122–142.Google Scholar
Bolton, G. E., and Ockenfels, A. (2000). “ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition,” American Economic Review, 90(1), 166–193.Google Scholar
Brandts, J., and Charness, G. (2011). “The strategy versus the direct-response method: A first survey of experimental comparisons,” Experimental Economics, 14(3), 375–398.Google Scholar
Breunig, C., Huck, S., Schmidt, T., and Weizsäcker, G. (2021). “The standard portfolio choice problem in Germany,” The Economic Journal, Vol. 131, Issue 638, August 2021, 2413–2446.Google Scholar
Bruhin, A., Fehr, E., and Schunk, D. (2019). “The many faces of human sociality: Uncovering the distribution and stability of social preferences,” Journal of the European Economic Association, 17(4), 1025–1069.Google Scholar
Bruhin, A., Fehr-Duda, H., and Epper, T. (2010). “Risk and rationality: Uncovering heterogeneity in probability distortion,” Econometrica, 78(4), 1375–1412.Google Scholar
Bruine, de Bruin, W., Fischhoff, B., Halpern-Felsher, B., and Millstein, S. (2000). “Expressing epistemic uncertainty: It’sa fifty-fifty chance,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81(1), 115–131.Google Scholar
Bruyn, A. D., and Bolton, G. E. (2008). “Estimating the influence of fairness on bargaining behavior,” Management Science, 54, 1774–1791.Google Scholar
Camerer, C. F., and Ho, T.-H. (1994). “Violations of the betweenness axiom and nonlinearity in probability,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 8(2), 167–196.Google Scholar
Cappelen, A., Hole, A. D., Sørensen, E., and Tundoggen, B. (2007). “The pluralism of fairness ideals: An experimental approach,” American Economic Review, 97, 818–827.Google Scholar
Charness, G., and Rabin, M. (2002). “Understanding social preferences with simple tests,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(3), 817–869.Google Scholar
Conte, A., and Hey, J. D. (2013). “Assessing multiple prior models of behaviour under ambiguity,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 46(2), 113–132.Google Scholar
Conte, A., Hey, J. D., and Moffatt, P. G. (2011). “Mixture models of choice under risk,” Journal of Econometrics, 162, 79–88.Google Scholar
Conte, A., and Moffatt, P. (2014). “The econometric modelling of social preferences,” Theory and Decision, 76, 119–145.Google Scholar
Conte, A., Moffatt, P. G., Botti, F., Di Cagno, D. T., and d’Ippoliti, C. (2012). “A test of the rational expectations hypothesis using data from a natural experiment,” Applied Economics, 44(35), 4661–4678.Google Scholar
Costa-Gomes, M. A., Huck, S., and Weizsäcker, G. (2014). “Beliefs and actions in the trust game: Creating instrumental variables to estimate the causal effect,” Games and Economic Behavior, 88, 298–309.Google Scholar
Cox, J. C. (2004). “How to identify trust and reciprocity,” Games and Economic Behavior, 46(2), 260–281.Google Scholar
Cox, J. C., Friedman, D., and Gjerstad, S. (2007). “A tractable model of reciprocity and fairness,” Games and Economic Behavior, 59(1), 17–45.Google Scholar
Cubitt, R., Van De Kuilen, G., and Mukerji, S. (2020). “Discriminating between models of ambiguity attitude: A qualitative test,” Journal of the European Economic Association, 18(2), 708–749.Google Scholar
Delavande, A., and Zafar, B. (2019). “University choice: The role of expected earnings, nonpecuniary outcomes, and financial constraints,” Journal of Political Economy, 127(5), 2343–2393.Google Scholar
DellaVigna, S. (2018). “Structural behavioral economics,” in Bernheim, B. D., DellaVigna, S., and Laibson, D. (eds.), Handbook of behavioral economics: Applications and foundations 1, vol. 1, pp. 613–723. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Dominitz, J. (2001). “Estimation of income expectations models using expectations and realization data,” Journal of Econometrics, 102(2), 165–195.Google Scholar
Dominitz, J., and Manski, C. F. (1996). “Eliciting student expectations of the returns to schooling,” Journal of Human Resources, vol. 31, 1–26.Google Scholar
Duflo, E., Hanna, R., and Ryan, S. P. (2012). “Incentives work: Getting teachers to come to school,” American Economic Review, 102(4), 1241–1278.Google Scholar
Dufwenberg, M., and Kirchsteiger, G. (2004). “A theory of sequential reciprocity,” Games and Economic Behavior, 47(2), 268–298.Google Scholar
Dyer, D., Kagel, J. H., and Levin, D. (1989). “Resolving uncertainty about the number of bidders in independent private-value auctions: An experimental analysis,” The RAND Journal of Economics, vol. 20, 268–279.Google Scholar
Ellingsen, T., Johannesson, M., Tjøtta, S., and Torsvik, G. (2010). “Testing guilt aversion,” Games and Economic Behavior, 68(1), 95–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellsberg, D. (1961). “Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 75, 643–669.Google Scholar
Engelberg, J., Manski, C. F., and Williams, J. (2009). “Comparing the point predictions and subjective probability distributions of professional forecasters,” Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 27(1), 30–41.Google Scholar
Engelmann, D., and Strobel, M. (2004). “Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments,” American Economic Review, 94(4), 857–869.Google Scholar
Fehr, E., Kirchsteiger, G., and Riedl, A. (1993). “Does fairness prevent market clearing? An experimental investigation,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(2), 437–459.Google Scholar
Fehr, E., and Schmidt, K. M. (1999). “A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817–868.Google Scholar
Gilboa, I., and Schmeidler, D. (1989). “Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior,” Journal of Mathematical Economics, 18(2), 141–153.Google Scholar
Giustinelli, P., Manski, C. F., and Molinari, F. (2022). “Precise or imprecise probabilities? Evidence from survey response related to late-onset dementia,” Journal of the European Economic Association vol. 20, pp. 187–221.Google Scholar
Gneezy, U., and List, J. A. (2006). “Putting behavioral economics to work: Testing for gift exchange in labor markets using field experiments,” Econometrica, 74(5), 1365–1384.Google Scholar
Goldstein, W. M., and Einhorn, H. J. (1987). “Expression theory and the preference reversal phenomena,” Psychological Review, 94(2), pp. 236–254.Google Scholar
Grimm, K. J., Houpt, R. and Rodgers, D. (2021) Model Fit and Comparison in Finite Mixture Models: A Review and a Novel Approach. Front. Educ. 6:613645. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.613645Google Scholar
Hey, J. D., Lotito, G., and Maffioletti, A. (2010). “The descriptive and predictive adequacy of theories of decision making under uncertainty/ambiguity,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 41(2), 81–111.Google Scholar
Hey, J. D., and Orme, C. (1994). “Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data,” Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, vol. 62 1291–1326.Google Scholar
Holt, C. A., and Laury, S. K. (2002). “Risk aversion and incentive effects,” American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644–1655.Google Scholar
Holt, C. A., and Laury, S. K. (2014). “Assessment and estimation of risk preferences,” in Machina, M. J. and Viscusi, W. K. (eds.), Handbook of the economics of risk and uncertainty, vol. 1, pp. 135–201. North-Holland.Google Scholar
Hurwicz, L. (1951). “Some specification problems and applications to econometric models,” Econometrica, 19(3), 343–344.Google Scholar
Keane, M. (2010). “Structural vs. atheoretic approaches to econometrics,” Journal of Econometrics, 156, 3–20.Google Scholar
Khalmetski, K. (2016). “Testing guilt aversion with an exogenous shift in beliefs,” Games and Economic Behavior, 97, 110–119.Google Scholar
Kimball, M. S., Sahm, C. R., and Shapiro, M. D. (2008). “Imputing risk tolerance from survey responses,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103(483), 1028–1038.Google Scholar
Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M., and Mukerji, S. (2005). “A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity,” Econometrica, 73(6), 1849–1892.Google Scholar
Kothiyal, A., Spinu, V., and Wakker, P. P. (2014). “An experimental test of prospect theory for predicting choice under ambiguity,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 48(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Kreps, D. M., and Porteus, E. L. (1978). “Temporal resolution of uncertainty and dynamic choice theory,” Econometrica: vol. 46, 185–200.Google Scholar
Kube, S., Maréchal, M. A., and Puppe, C. (2012). “The currency of reciprocity: Gift exchange in the workplace,” American Economic Review, 102(4), 1644–1662.Google Scholar
Kube, S., Maréchal, M. A., and Puppe, C. (2013). “Do wage cuts damage work morale? Evidence from a natural field experiment,” Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(4), 853–870.Google Scholar
Lever, J., Krzywinski, M., and Altman, N. (2016). “Points of significance: Model selection and overfitting,” Nature Methods, 13(9), 703–705.Google Scholar
Li, Q., and Racine, J. S. (2007). Nonparametric econometrics: Theory and practice. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Low, H., and Meghir, C. (2017). “The use of structural models in econometrics,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 33–58.Google Scholar
Manski, C. F. (2002). “Identification of decision rules in experiments on simple games of proposal and response,” European Economic Review, 46(4–5), 880–891.Google Scholar
Manski, Charles F and Molinari, Francesca. Rounding probabilistic expectations in surveys, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 28(2), 219–231.Google Scholar
McFadden, D., and Train, K. (2000). “Mixed MNL models for discrete response,” Journal of Applied Econometrics, 15(5), 447–470.Google Scholar
McLachlan, G. J., Lee, S. X., and Rathnayake, S. I. (2019). “Finite mixture models,” Annual Review of Statistics and its Application, 6, 355–378.Google Scholar
Nevo, A., and Whinston, M. (2010). “Taking the dogma out of econometrics: Structural modeling and credible inference,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24, 69–82.Google Scholar
Nyarko, Y., and Schotter, A. (2002). “An experimental study of belief learning using elicited beliefs,” Econometrica, 70(3), 971–1005.Google Scholar
Paarsch, H. J., and Shearer, B. (2000). “Piece rates, fixed wages, and incentive effects: Statistical evidence from payroll records,” International Economic Review, 41(1), 59–92.Google Scholar
Paarsch, H. J., and Shearer, B. S. (1999). “The response of worker effort to piece rates: Evidence from the British Columbia tree-planting industry,” Journal of Human Resources, vol. 34 643–667.Google Scholar
Paul Schultz, T. (2004). “School subsidies for the poor: Evaluating the Mexican Progresa poverty program,” Journal of Development Economics, 74(1), 199–250.Google Scholar
Quiggin, J. (1982). “A theory of anticipated utility,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3(4), 323–343.Google Scholar
Rabin, M. (1993). “Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics,” The American Economic Review, 1281–1302.Google Scholar
Revelt, D., and Train, K. (1998). “Mixed logit with repeated choices: Households’ choices of appliance efficiency level,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4), 647–657.Google Scholar
Rust, J. (2010). “Comments on: Structural vs. atheoretic approaches to econometrics by Michael Keane,” Journal of Econometrics, 156(1), 21–24.Google Scholar
Shearer, B. (2004). “Piece rates, fixed wages and incentives: Evidence from a field experiment,” Review of Economic Studies, 71, 513–534.Google Scholar
Todd, P. E., and Wolpin, K. I. (2006). “Assessing the impact of a school subsidy program in Mexico: Using a social experiment to validate a dynamic behavioral model of child schooling and fertility,” American Economic Review, 96(5), 1384–1417.Google Scholar
Train, K. E. (1998). “Recreation demand models with taste differences over people,” Land Economics, 230–239.Google Scholar
Train, K. E. (2008). “EM algorithms for nonparametric estimation of mixing distributions,” Journal of Choice Modelling, 1(1), 40–69.Google Scholar
Train, K. E. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Von Gaudecker, H.-M., Van Soest, A., and Wengstrom, E. (2011). “Heterogeneity in risky choice behavior in a broad population,” American Economic Review, 101(2), 664–694.Google Scholar
Wakker, P. P. (2010). Prospect theory: For risk and ambiguity. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wik, M., Aragie Kebede, T., Bergland, O., and Holden, S. T. (2004). “On the measurement of risk aversion from experimental data,” Applied Economics, 36(21), 2443–2451.Google Scholar
Wilcox, N. T. (2011). ‘ “Stochastically more risk averse:’ A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk,” Journal of Econometrics, 162(1), 89–104.Google Scholar
Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data, 2nd ed. MIT Press.Google Scholar