Inferring beliefs as subjectively imprecise probabilities
- 265 Downloads
We propose a method for estimating subjective beliefs, viewed as a subjective probability distribution. The key insight is to characterize beliefs as a parameter to be estimated from observed choices in a well-defined experimental task and to estimate that parameter as a random coefficient. The experimental task consists of a series of standard lottery choices in which the subject is assumed to use conventional risk attitudes to select one lottery or the other and then a series of betting choices in which the subject is presented with a range of bookies offering odds on the outcome of some event that the subject has a belief over. Knowledge of the risk attitudes of subjects conditions the inferences about subjective beliefs. Maximum simulated likelihood methods are used to estimate a structural model in which subjects employ subjective beliefs to make bets. We present evidence that some subjective probabilities are indeed best characterized as probability distributions with non-zero variance.
KeywordsSubjective risk Subjective beliefs Random coefficients Non-linear mixed logit Experiments
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Ahn, D., Choi, S., Gale, D., & Kariv, S. (2009). Estimating ambiguity aversion in a portfolio choice experiment. Working paper, Department of Economics, University of California at Berkeley, Feb 2009.Google Scholar
- Andersen, S., Fountain, J., Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2010). Estimating subjective probabilities. Working Paper 2010–2006, Center for the Economic Analysis of Risk, Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University.Google Scholar
- Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Hole, A. R., Lau, & Ruström, E. E. (2011). Non-linear mixed logit. Theory and Decision. doi:10.10071s112.38-011-9277-00.
- de Finetti, B. (1937). La Prévision: Ses Lois Logiques, ses sources subjectives. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincairé, 7, 1–68; English translation as “Foresight: Its logical laws, its subjective sources,” in H. E. Kyburg & H. E. Smokler (Eds.), Studies in subjective probability. Huntington, NY: Robert E. Krieger, 1980, Second Edition.Google Scholar
- Drukker D.M., Gates R. (2006) Generating Halton sequences using mata. Stata Journal 6(2): 214–228Google Scholar
- Epstein R. A. (1977) The theory of gambling and statistical logic. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
- Harrison G. W., Rutström E. E. (2008) Risk aversion in the laboratory. In: Cox J. C., Harrison G. W. (eds) Risk aversion in experiments. Emerald, Bingley, UKGoogle Scholar
- Hey, J. D., Lotito, G., Maffioletti, A. (2007). Choquet OK? Discussion Paper No. 2007/12, Department of Economics and Related Studies, University of York.Google Scholar
- Hey, J. D., Lotito, G., Maffioletti, A. (2008). The descriptive and predictive adequacy of theories of decision making under uncertainty/ambiguity. Discussion Paper No. 2008/04, Department of Economics and Related Studies, University of York.Google Scholar
- Hole A. R. (2007) Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood. Stata Journal 7(3): 388–401Google Scholar
- Nau R. F. (2007) Extensions of the subjective expected utility model. In: Ward E., Ralph M., von Detlof W. (eds) Advances in decision analysis: From foundations to applications. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Oehlert G. W. (1992) A note on the delta method. The American Statistician 46(1): 27–29Google Scholar
- Savage L. J. (1971) Elicitation of personal probabilities and expectations. Journal of American Statistical Association 66: 783–801Google Scholar
- Wilcox N. T. (2008) Stochastic models for binary discrete choice under risk: A critical primer and econometric comparison. In: Cox J., Harrison G. W. (eds) Risk aversion in experiments. Emerald, Bingley, UKGoogle Scholar