Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bounding preference parameters under different assumptions about beliefs: a partial identification approach

  • Published:
Experimental Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We show how bounds around preferences parameters can be estimated under various levels of assumptions concerning the beliefs of senders in the investment game. We contrast these bounds with point estimates of the preference parameters obtained using non-incentivized subjective belief data. Our point estimates suggest that expected responses and social preferences both play a significant role in determining investment in the game. Moreover, these point estimates fall within our most reasonable bounds. This suggests that credible inferences can be obtained using non-incentivized beliefs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2006). Elicitation using multiple price list formats. Experimental Economics, 9, 383–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni, J., & Miller, J. (2002). Giving according to GARP: an experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism. Econometrica, 70(2), 737–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellemare, C., Bissonnette, L., & Kröger, S. (2007). Flexible approximation of subjective expectations using probability questions: an application to the investment game, IZA Discussion paper 3121.

  • Bellemare, C., Kröger, S., & van Soest, A. (2008). Measuring inequity aversion in a heterogeneous population using experimental decisions and subjective probabilities. Econometrica, 76, 815–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellemare, C., Sebald, A., & Strobel, M. (2010, forthcoming). Measuring the willingness to pay to avoid guilt: estimation using equilibrium and stated belief models. Journal of Applied Econometrics.

  • Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 122–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 817–869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciliberto, F., & Tamer, E. (2009). Market structure and multiple equilibria in airline markets. Econometrica, 77(6), 1791–1828.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coller, M., & Williams, M. (1999). Elicitating individual discount rates. Experimental Economics, 2, 107–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, J. C. (2004). How to identify trust and reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 46, 260–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckel, C., & Wilson, R. K. (2004). Is trust a risky decision? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 55, 447–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellingsen, T., Johannesson, M., Torsvik, G., & Tjøtta, S. (2010). Testing guilt aversion. Games and Economic Behavior, 68, 95–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelmann, D., & Strobel, M. (2004). Inequality aversion, efficiency and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments. American Economic Review, 94(4), 857–869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644–1655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honoré, B., & Tamer, E. (2006). Bounds on parameters in dynamic discrete choice models. Econometrica, 74, 611–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houser, D., Schunk, D., & Winter, J. (2010). Distinguishing trust from risk: an anatomy of the investment game. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 74(1–2), 72–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manski, C. (1989). Anatomy of the selection problem. Journal of Human Resources, 24(3), 343–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manski, C. (1994). The selection problem (Vol. 1, pp. 143–170). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manski, C., & Tamer, E. (2002). Inference on regressions with interval data on a regressor or outcome. Econometrica, 70, 519–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Département d’économique, Université Laval, Québec, Canada

    Charles Bellemare & Sabine Kröger

  2. Department of Econometrics and OR, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Luc Bissonnette

Authors
  1. Charles Bellemare
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luc Bissonnette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sabine Kröger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles Bellemare.

Additional information

Part of this paper first appeared in Bellemare et al. (2007). An OX code with files implementing all the procedures discussed in this paper can be downloaded at http://www.ecn.ulaval.ca/charles.bellemare/. We thank Jim Cox and the Economic Science Laboratory in Tucson, Arizona, for financial and technical support, Urs Fischbacher for his support in programming the experiment, Wafa Hakim for her research assistance in conducting the experiment, and two reviewers for comments.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bellemare, C., Bissonnette, L. & Kröger, S. Bounding preference parameters under different assumptions about beliefs: a partial identification approach. Exp Econ 13, 334–345 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-010-9244-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-010-9244-6

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation