Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 595–626 | Cite as

Bayesian group belief

Open Access
Original Paper

Abstract

If a group is modelled as a single Bayesian agent, what should its beliefs be? I propose an axiomatic model that connects group beliefs to beliefs of the group members. The group members may have different information, different prior beliefs and even different domains (algebras) within which they hold beliefs, accounting for differences in awareness and conceptualisation. As is shown, group beliefs can incorporate all information spread across individuals without individuals having to explicitly communicate their information (that may be too complex or personal to describe, or not describable in principle in the language). The group beliefs derived here take a simple multiplicative form if people’s information is independent (and a more complex form if information overlaps arbitrarily). This form contrasts with familiar linear or geometric opinion pooling and the (Pareto) requirement of respecting unanimous beliefs.

References

  1. Broome J (1990) Bolker-Jeffrey expected utility theory and axiomatic utilitarianism. Rev Econ Stud 57: 477–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dietrich F (2004) Opinion pooling under asymmetric information. working paper, Public Economics 0407002, EconWPAGoogle Scholar
  3. Dietrich F (2008) The premises of Condorcet’s jury theorem are not simultaneously justified. Episteme 5(1): 56–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dietrich F, List C (2007) Opinion pooling on general agendas. working paper, METEOR Research Memorandum 038, Maastricht UniversityGoogle Scholar
  5. Fitelson B (2001) A Bayesian account of independent evidence with applications. Phil Sci 68 (Proceedings): S123–S140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Genest C (1984) A characterization theorem for externally Bayesian groups. Ann Stat 12: 1100–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Genest C, Zidek JV (1986) Combining probability distributions: a critique and an annotated bibliography. Stat Sci 1: 114–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Genest C, McConway KJ, Schervish MJ (1986) Characterization of externally Bayesian pooling operators. Ann Stat 14: 487–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hild M (1998) The instability of ex post aggregation. TypescriptGoogle Scholar
  10. Hylland A, Zeckhauser R (1979) The impossibility of group decision making with separate aggregation of beliefs and values. Econometrica 47: 1321–1336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jeffrey R (1983) The logic of decision (first published 1965). Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  12. Lehrer K, Wagner C (1981) Rational consensus in science and society. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  13. Levi I (1990) Pareto-unanimity and consensus. J Philos 87Google Scholar
  14. Madansky A (1964) Externally Bayesian groups. Technical Report RM-4141-PR, RAND CorporationGoogle Scholar
  15. McConway K (1978) The combination of experts’ opinions in probability assessments: some theoretical considerations. Ph.D. thesis, University College LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. McConway K (1981) Marginalization and linear opinion pools. J Am Stat Assoc 76: 410–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mongin P (1995) Consistent Bayesian aggregation. J Econ Theory 66: 313–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mongin P (1998) The paradox of the Bayesian experts and state-dependent utility theory. J Math Econ 29: 331–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Morris PA (1974) Decision analysis expert use. Manage Sci 20: 1233–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pearl J (2000) Causality: models, reasoning and inference. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Pivato M (2008) The discursive dilemma and probabilistic judgement aggregation. MPRA Paper 8412, University Library of Munich, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  22. Risse M (2001) Instability of ex post aggregation in the Bolker/Jeffrey framework and related instability phenomena. Erkenntnis 55: 239–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Risse M (2003) Bayesian group agents and two modes of aggregation. Synthese (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  24. Savage L (1954) The foundations of statistics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Schervish M, Seidenfeld T, Kadane J (1991) Shared preferences and state-dependent utilities. Manage Sci 37: 1575–1589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Seidenfeld T, Kadane J, Schervish M (1989) On the shared preferences of two Bayesian decision makers. J Philos 86: 221–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wagner CG (1982) Allocation, Lehrer models, and the consensus of probabilities. Theory Decis 14: 207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wagner C (1985) On the formal properties of weighted averaging as a method of aggregation. Synthese 62: 97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific MethodLondon School of EconomicsLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Quantitative EconomicsMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations