Experimental guidance for eliciting beliefs with the Stochastic Becker–DeGroot–Marschak mechanism
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.
KeywordsBeliefs Elicitation Prediction accuracy Methodology
JEL ClassificationC91 D81 D83
- 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.Google 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