Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-7g5wt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-17T00:25:19.033Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Charles Bellemare ,
Luc Bissonnette  and
Sabine Kröger
Charles Bellemare*
Affiliation:
Département d’économique, Université Laval, Québec, Canada
Luc Bissonnette*
Affiliation:
Department of Econometrics and OR, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
Sabine Kröger*
Affiliation:
Département d’économique, Université Laval, Québec, Canada
*
e-mail: cbellemare@ecn.ulaval.ca
e-mail: l.bissonnette@uvt.nl
e-mail: skroger@ecn.ulaval.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

Partial identificationPreferencesBeliefsDecision making under uncertaintyInvestment game

JEL classification

C81: Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data • Data Access
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 2010 , pp. 334 - 345
Copyright
Copyright © Economic Science Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

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.

References

Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2006). Elicitation using multiple price list formats. Experimental Economics, 9, 383–405.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 122–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 817–869.CrossRefGoogle 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, 107127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, J. C. (2004). How to identify trust and reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 46, 260–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, C., & Wilson, R. K. (2004). Is trust a risky decision? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 55, 447–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellingsen, T., Johannesson, M., Torsvik, G., & Tjøtta, S. (2010). Testing guilt aversion. Games and Economic Behavior, 68, 95–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelmann, D., & Strobel, M. (2004). Inequality aversion, efficiency and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments. American Economic Review, 94(4), 857–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, C.A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644–1655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honoré, B., & Tamer, E. (2006). Bounds on parameters in dynamic discrete choice models. Econometrica, 74,611-629.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manski, C. (1989). Anatomy of the selection problem. Journal of Human Resources, 24(3), 343–360.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar