Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp 35–54 | Cite as

Subjective Bayesian beliefs

  • Constantinos Antoniou
  • Glenn W. Harrison
  • Morten I. Lau
  • Daniel Read


A large literature suggests that many individuals do not apply Bayes’ Rule when making decisions that depend on them correctly pooling prior information and sample data. We replicate and extend a classic experimental study of Bayesian updating from psychology, employing the methods of experimental economics, with careful controls for the confounding effects of risk aversion. Our results show that risk aversion significantly alters inferences on deviations from Bayes’ Rule.


Bayes’ Rule Subjective beliefs Learning 

JEL Classifications

D03 D81 D83 



Harrison thanks the U.S. National Science Foundation for research support under grants NSF/HSD 0527675 and NSF/SES 0616746, and we thank the referee and seminar and conference participants for valuable comments.

Supplementary material

11166_2015_9208_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (241 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 240 kb)


  1. Andersen, S., Fountain, J., Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2014). Estimating subjective probabilities. Journal of Risk & Uncertainty, 48, 207–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2007). Valuation using multiple price list formats. Applied Economics, 39, 675–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker, G. M., DeGroot, M. H., & Marschak, J. (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science, 9, 226–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis, D. B., & Paté-Cornell, M. E. (1994). A challenge to the compound lottery axiom: a two-stage normative structure and comparison to other theories. Theory and Decision, 37, 267–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eeckhoudt, L., Gollier, C., & Schlesinger, H. (1996). Changes in background risk and risk taking behavior. Econometrica, 64, 683–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ergin, H., & Gul, F. (2009). A theory of subjective compound lotteries. Journal of Economic Theory, 144(3), 899–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fiore, S. M., Harrison, G. W., Hughes, C. E., & Rutström, E. E. (2009). Virtual experiments and environmental policy. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 57, 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ghirardato, P., Maccheroni, F., & Marinacci, M. (2004). Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude. Journal of Economic Theory, 118, 133–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gilboa, I., Postlewaite, A. W., & Schmeidler, D. (2008). Probability and uncertainty in economic modeling. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22, 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (1989). Maxmin expected utility with a non-unique prior. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 18, 141–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gollier, C., & Pratt, J. W. (1996). Risk vulnerability and the tempering effect of background risk. Econometrica, 64, 1109–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gonzalez, R., & Wu, G. (1999). On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 129–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grant, S. (1995). Subjective probability without monotonicity: or how Machina’s mom may also be probabilistically sophisticated. Econometrica, 63, 159–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grether, D. M. (1992). Testing Bayes’ rule and the representativeness heuristic: some experimental evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 17, 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Griffin, D., & Tversky, A. (1992). The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 411–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gul, F. (1991). A theory of disappointment aversion. Econometrica, 59, 667–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harrison, G. W. (1992). Theory and misbehavior of first-price auctions: reply. American Economic Review, 82, 1426–1443.Google Scholar
  19. Harrison, G. W., Johnson, E., McInnes, M. M., & Rutström, E. E. (2005). Risk aversion and incentive effects: comment. American Economic Review, 95, 897–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Williams, M. B. (2002). Estimating individual discount rates for Denmark: a field experiment. American Economic Review, 92, 1606–1617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2008). Risk aversion in the laboratory. In J. C. Cox & G. W. Harrison (Eds.), Risk aversion in experiments (Vol. 12, pp. 41–197). Bingley: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hey, J. D., & Orme, C. (1994). Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica, 62, 1291–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92, 1644–1655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holt, C. A., & Smith, A. M. (2009). An update on Bayesian updating. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 69, 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M., & Mukerji, S. (2005). A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity. Econometrica, 73, 1849–1892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Machina, M. J., & Schmeidler, D. (1992). A more robust definition of subjective probability. Econometrica, 60, 745–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Machina, M. J., & Schmeidler, D. (1995). Bayes without Bernoulli: simple conditions for probabilistically sophisticated choice. Journal of Economic Theory, 67, 106–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nau, R. F. (2006). Uncertainty aversion with second-order utilities and probabilities. Management Science, 52, 136–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Neilson, W. S. (2010). A simplified axiomatic approach to ambiguity aversion. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 41, 113–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Plott, C. R., & Zeiler, K. (2005). The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the ‘endowment effect,’ subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations. American Economic Review, 95, 530–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Prelec, D. (1998). The probability weighting function. Econometrica, 66, 497–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Quiggin, J. (1982). A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3, 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Quiggin, J. (2003). Background risk in generalized expected utility theory. Economic Theory, 22, 607–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rieger, M. O., & Wang, M. (2006). Cumulative prospect theory and the St. Petersburg paradox. Economic Theory, 28, 665–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rutström, E. E. (1998). Home-grown values and the design of incentive compatible auctions. International Journal of Game Theory, 27, 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Segal, U. (1987). The Ellsberg Paradox and risk aversion: an anticipated utility approach. International Economic Review, 28, 175–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Segal, U. (1988). Does the preference reversal phenomenon necessarily contradict the independence axiom? American Economic Review, 78, 233–236.Google Scholar
  38. Segal, U. (1990). Two-stage lotteries without the reduction axiom. Econometrica, 58, 349–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Segal, U. (1992). The independence axiom versus the reduction axiom: Must we have both? In W. Edwards (Ed.), Utility theories: Measurements and applications. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  40. Savage, L. J. (1971). Elicitation of personal probabilities and expectations. Journal of American Statistical Association, 66, 783–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Savage, L. J. (1972). The foundations of statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  42. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representations of uncertainty. Journal of Risk & Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilcox, N. T. (2008). Predicting individual risky choices out-of-context: A critical stochastic modeling primer and Monte Carlo study. In J. Cox & G. W. Harrison (Eds.), Risk aversion in experiments (Vol. 12). Bingley: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wilcox, N. T. (2011). ‘Stochastically more risk averse:’a contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk. Journal of Econometrics, 162, 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Constantinos Antoniou
    • 1
  • Glenn W. Harrison
    • 2
    • 5
    • 6
  • Morten I. Lau
    • 3
    • 4
  • Daniel Read
    • 1
  1. 1.Warwick Business SchoolUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK
  2. 2.Department of Risk Management & Insurance and Center for the Economic Analysis of Risk, Robinson College of BusinessGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Durham Business SchoolDurham UniversityDurhamUK
  4. 4.Copenhagen Business SchoolCopenhagenDenmark
  5. 5.School of Economics, University of CapetownCapetownSouth Africa
  6. 6.IZA- Institute for the Study of LaborBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations