IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ajk/ajkdps/350.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Separating Preferences from Endogenous Effort and Cognitive Noise in Observed Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Christian Belzil

    (CREST, CNRS, Paris Polytechnic Institute, IZA, CIRANO)

  • Tomáš Jagelka

    (University of Bonn, Dartmouth College, CREST-Ensae, IZA)

Abstract

We develop a micro-founded framework for accounting for individuals' effort and cognitive noise which confound estimates of preferences based on observed behavior. Using a large-scale experimental dataset we estimate that failure to properly account for decision errors due to (rational) inattention on a more complex, but commonly used, task design biases estimates of risk aversion by 50% for the median individual. Effort propensities recovered from preference elicitation tasks generalize to other settings and predict performance on an OECD-sponsored achievement test used to make international comparisons. Furthermore, accounting for endogenous effort allows us to empirically reconcile competing models of discrete choice.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian Belzil & Tomáš Jagelka, 2024. "Separating Preferences from Endogenous Effort and Cognitive Noise in Observed Decisions," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 350, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:ajk:ajkdps:350
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econtribute.de/RePEc/ajk/ajkdps/ECONtribute_350_2024.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2024
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel A. Ballester, 2018. "Monotone Stochastic Choice Models: The Case of Risk and Time Preferences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(1), pages 74-106.
    2. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2002. "Sex Differences and Statistical Stereotyping in Attitudes Toward Financial Risk," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-03, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    3. Krueger, Alan B. & Schkade, David A., 2008. "The reliability of subjective well-being measures," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(8-9), pages 1833-1845, August.
    4. Christian Belzil & Arnaud Maurel & Modibo Sidibé, 2021. "Estimating the Value of Higher Education Financial Aid: Evidence from a Field Experiment," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(2), pages 361-395.
    5. Smith, Vernon L & Walker, James M, 1993. "Monetary Rewards and Decision Cost in Experimental Economics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 31(2), pages 245-261, April.
    6. Larbi Alaoui & Antonio Penta, 2022. "Cost-Benefit Analysis in Reasoning," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 130(4), pages 881-925.
    7. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean, 2015. "Revealed Preference, Rational Inattention, and Costly Information Acquisition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(7), pages 2183-2203, July.
    8. Hans P. Binswanger, 1980. "Attitudes Toward Risk: Experimental Measurement in Rural India," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 62(3), pages 395-407.
    9. Camerer, Colin F & Hogarth, Robin M, 1999. "The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 7-42, December.
    10. Ben Gillen & Erik Snowberg & Leeat Yariv, 2019. "Experimenting with Measurement Error: Techniques with Applications to the Caltech Cohort Study," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(4), pages 1826-1863.
    11. Steffen Andersen & Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2008. "Eliciting Risk and Time Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(3), pages 583-618, May.
    12. Ola Andersson & Håkan J. Holm & Jean-Robert Tyran & Erik Wengström, 2016. "Risk Aversion Relates to Cognitive Ability: Preferences Or Noise?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 14(5), pages 1129-1154.
    13. Thomas Dohmen & Tomáš Jagelka, 2024. "Accounting for Individual-Specific Reliability of Self-Assessed Measures of Economic Preferences and Personality Traits," Journal of Political Economy Microeconomics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 2(3), pages 399-462.
    14. David M. Bruner, 2017. "Does decision error decrease with risk aversion?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(1), pages 259-273, March.
    15. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2018. "On the Relationship between Cognitive Ability and Risk Preference," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 32(2), pages 115-134, Spring.
    16. John D. Hey & Chris Orme, 2018. "Investigating Generalizations Of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 3, pages 63-98, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    17. Uri Gneezy & John A. List & Jeffrey A. Livingston & Xiangdong Qin & Sally Sadoff & Yang Xu, 2019. "Measuring Success in Education: The Role of Effort on the Test Itself," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 1(3), pages 291-308, December.
    18. Peter Moffatt, 2005. "Stochastic Choice and the Allocation of Cognitive Effort," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(4), pages 369-388, December.
    19. Wilcox, Nathaniel T., 2011. "'Stochastically more risk averse:' A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 89-104, May.
    20. Vojtěch Bartoš & Michal Bauer & Julie Chytilová & Filip Matějka, 2016. "Attention Discrimination: Theory and Field Experiments with Monitoring Information Acquisition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(6), pages 1437-1475, June.
    21. Cathleen Johnson & Claude Montmarquette, 2015. "The lack of loan aversion among Canadian high school students," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(2), pages 585-611, May.
    22. Jim Engle-Warnick & Javier Escobal & Sonia Laszlo, 2006. "The Effect of an Additional Alternative on Measured Risk Preferences in a Laboratory Experiment in Peru," CIRANO Working Papers 2006s-06, CIRANO.
    23. Francesco Cerigioni, 2021. "Dual Decision Processes: Retrieving Preferences When Some Choices Are Automatic," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(6), pages 1667-1704.
    24. John D. Hey, 2018. "Experimental investigations of errors in decision making under risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 17, pages 381-388, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    25. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2008. "Forecasting Risk Attitudes: An Experimental Study Using Actual and Forecast Gamble Choices," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-01, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    26. Marina Agranov & Pietro Ortoleva, 2017. "Stochastic Choice and Preferences for Randomization," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 125(1), pages 40-68.
    27. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean & John Leahy, 2022. "Rationally Inattentive Behavior: Characterizing and Generalizing Shannon Entropy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 130(6), pages 1676-1715.
    28. Tomáš Jagelka, 2024. "Are Economists’ Preferences Psychologists’ Personality Traits? A Structural Approach," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 132(3), pages 910-970.
    29. Harless, David W & Camerer, Colin F, 1994. "The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1251-1289, November.
    30. Ernst Fehr & Antonio Rangel, 2011. "Neuroeconomic Foundations of Economic Choice--Recent Advances," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(4), pages 3-30, Fall.
    31. Keith Coble & Jayson Lusk, 2010. "At the nexus of risk and time preferences: An experimental investigation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 67-79, August.
    32. Jonathan P. Beauchamp & David Cesarini & Magnus Johannesson, 2017. "The psychometric and empirical properties of measures of risk preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(3), pages 203-237, June.
    33. Chetan Dave & Catherine Eckel & Cathleen Johnson & Christian Rojas, 2010. "Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 219-243, December.
    34. Ola Andersson & Håkan J. Holm & Jean-Robert Tyran & Erik Wengström, 2020. "Robust inference in risk elicitation tasks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 195-209, December.
    35. Cary Frydman & Lawrence J Jin, 2022. "Efficient Coding and Risky Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 137(1), pages 161-213.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tomáš Jagelka, 2024. "Are Economists’ Preferences Psychologists’ Personality Traits? A Structural Approach," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 132(3), pages 910-970.
    2. Ola Andersson & Håkan J. Holm & Jean-Robert Tyran & Erik Wengström, 2020. "Robust inference in risk elicitation tasks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 195-209, December.
    3. Michele Garagnani, 2023. "The predictive power of risk elicitation tasks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 165-192, October.
    4. Holzmeister, Felix & Stefan, Matthias, 2019. "The Risk Elicitation Puzzle Revisited: Across-Methods (In)consistency?," OSF Preprints pj9u2, Center for Open Science.
    5. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2019. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Working Papers 2019-19, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    6. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2021. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 593-616, June.
    7. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2023. "Numeracy Skills, Decision Errors, and Risk Preference Estimation," CLTS Working Papers 5/23, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies.
    8. Friedman, Daniel & Habib, Sameh & James, Duncan & Williams, Brett, 2022. "Varieties of risk preference elicitation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 58-76.
    9. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    10. Fidanoski, Filip & Johnson, Timothy, 2023. "A z-Tree implementation of the Dynamic Experiments for Estimating Preferences [DEEP] method," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    11. Thomas Meissner & Xavier Gassmann & Corinne Faure & Joachim Schleich, 2023. "Individual characteristics associated with risk and time preferences: A multi country representative survey," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 66(1), pages 77-107, February.
    12. Hans-Martin Gaudecker & Arthur Soest & Erik Wengström, 2012. "Experts in experiments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 159-190, October.
    13. Arianna Galliera & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2021. "Crowded out: Heterogeneity in risk attitudes among poor households in the US," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(2), pages 103-132, October.
    14. Jonathan P. Beauchamp & Daniel J. Benjamin & David I. Laibson & Christopher F. Chabris, 2020. "Measuring and controlling for the compromise effect when estimating risk preference parameters," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 1069-1099, December.
    15. Estepa-Mohedano, Lorenzo & Espinosa, María Paz, 2023. "Comparing risk elicitation in lotteries with visual or contextual aids," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    16. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Michele Garagnani, 2022. "Strength of preference and decisions under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 64(3), pages 309-329, June.
    17. David M. Bruner, 2017. "Does decision error decrease with risk aversion?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(1), pages 259-273, March.
    18. Michalis Drouvelis & Johannes Lohse, 2020. "Cognitive abilities and risk taking: the role of preferences," Discussion Papers 20-02, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
    19. Jan Hausfeld & Sven Resnjanskij, 2017. "Risky Decisions and the Opportunity Costs of Time," TWI Research Paper Series 108, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
    20. Chetan Dave & Catherine Eckel & Cathleen Johnson & Christian Rojas, 2010. "Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 219-243, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Preferences; risk preference; stochastic choice models; endogenous effort; cognitive noise; task complexity; experimental design;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • C40 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ajk:ajkdps:350. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ECONtribute Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.econtribute.de .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.