Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T19:04:51.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experimental guidance for eliciting beliefs with the Stochastic Becker–DeGroot–Marschak mechanism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Ingrid Burfurd  and
Tom Wilkening Open the ORCID record for Tom Wilkening [Opens in a new window]
Ingrid Burfurd*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
Tom Wilkening*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
*
ingrid.burfurd@gmail.com
e-mail: tom.wilkening@unimelb.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We compare different implementations of the Stochastic Becker–DeGroot–Marschak (SBDM) belief elicitation mechanism, which is theoretically elegant but challenging to implement. In a first experiment, we compare three common formats of the mechanism in terms of speed and data quality. We find that all formats yield reports with similar levels of accuracy and precision, but that the instructions and reporting format adapted from Hao and Houser (J Risk Uncertain 44(2):161–180 2012) is significantly faster to implement. We use this format in a second experiment in which we vary the delivery method and quiz procedure. Dropping the pre-experiment quiz significantly compromises the accuracy of subject’s reports and leads to a dramatic spike in boundary reports. However, switching between electronic and paper-based instructions and quizzes does not affect the accuracy or precision of subjects’ reports.

Keywords

BeliefsElicitationPrediction accuracyMethodology

JEL classification

C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior D81: Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty D83: Search • Learning • Information and Knowledge • Communication • Belief • Unawareness
Type
Original Paper
Information
Journal of the Economic Science Association , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , July 2018 , pp. 15 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Economic Science Association

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 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s40881-018-0046-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

We thank Amy Corman, Laboratory Manager at the University of Melbourne’s Experimental Economics Lab. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Australian Research Council through the Discovery Early Career Research Award DE140101014 as well as the Faculty of Business and Economics at the University of Melbourne.

References

Becker, G. M., DeGroot, M. H., Marschak, J. (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science, 9(3), 226–232. 10.1002/bs.3830090304CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ducharme, W. M., Donnell, M. L. (1973). Intrasubject comparison of four response modes for “subjective probability” assessment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10(1), 108–117. 10.1016/0030-5073(73)90007-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, L. (1999). A definition of uncertainty aversion. The Review of Economic Studies, 66(3), 579–609. 10.1111/1467-937X.00099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grether, D. M. (1992). Testing bayes rule and the representativeness heuristic: Some experimental evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 17(1), 31–57. 10.1016/0167-2681(92)90078-PCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hao, L., Houser, D. (2012). Belief elicitation in the presence of naïve respondents: An experimental study. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 44(2), 161–180. 10.1007/s11166-011-9133-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G. W., Rutström, E. E. (2009). Expected utility theory and prospect theory: One wedding and a decent funeral. Experimental Economics, 12(2), 133–158. 10.1007/s10683-008-9203-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollard, G., Massoni, S., Vergnaud, J.-C. (2016). In search of good probability assessors: An experimental comparison of elicitation rules for confidence judgments. Theory and Decision, 80(3), 363–387. 10.1007/s11238-015-9509-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, C. A., Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644–1655. 10.1257/000282802762024700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, C. A., Smith, A. M. (2009). An update on bayesian updating. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 69(2), 125–134. 10.1016/j.jebo.2007.08.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, C. A., Smith, A. M. (2016). Belief elicitation with a synchronized lottery choice menu that is invariant to risk attitudes. American Economic Journal Microeconomics, 8(1), 110–39. 10.1257/mic.20130274CrossRefGoogle 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, 71–85. 10.1016/S0167-2681(01)00170-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karni, E. (2009). A theory of medical decision making under uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 39(1), 1–16. 10.1007/s11166-009-9071-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machina, M. J., Schmeidler, D. (1992). A more robust definition of subjective probability. Econometrica, 60(4), 745–780. 10.2307/2951565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massoni, S., Gajdos, T., Vergnaud, J.-C. (2014). Confidence measurement in the light of signal detection theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 1455(5), 1–13.Google Scholar
Möbius, M. M., Niederle, M., Niehaus, P., & Rosenblat, T. (2007). Gender differences in incorporating performance feedback. draft, February.Google Scholar
Möbius, M. M., Niederle, M., Niehaus, P., & Rosenblat, T. S. (2011). Managing self-confidence: Theory and experimental evidence. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palfrey, T., Wang, S. (2009). On eliciting beliefs in strategic games. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 71, 98–109. 10.1016/j.jebo.2009.03.025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlag, K. H., Tremewan, J., Van der Weele, J. J. (2013). A penny for your thoughts: A survey of methods for eliciting beliefs. Experimental Economics, 18(3), 1–34.Google Scholar
Schotter, A., Trevino, I. (2014). Belief elicitation in the laboratory. Annual Review of Economics, 6(1), 103–128. 10.1146/annurev-economics-080213-040927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trautmann, S. T., van de Kuilen, G. (2015). Belief elicitation: A horse race among truth serums. The Economic Journal, 125, 2116–2135. 10.1111/ecoj.12160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Burfurd and Wilkening supplementary material

Burfurd and Wilkening supplementary material
Download Burfurd and Wilkening supplementary material(File)
File 97.7 KB