IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_11703.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Reassessing Qualitative Self-Assessments and Experimental Validation

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan Chapman
  • Pietro Ortoleva
  • Erik Snowberg
  • Leeat Yariv
  • Colin Camerer

Abstract

Qualitative self-assessments of economic preferences have recently gained popularity, often supported by experimental validation, a method that links them to choices in incentivized elicitations. We illustrate theoretically that experimental validation may fail to produce reliable new measures. Empirically, analyzing data from over 13,000 participants across diverse samples, we document four key findings. First, qualitative self-assessments and traditional incentivized measures exhibit weak correlations, even when accounting for response noise. Second, qualitative self-assessments sometimes correlate more strongly with theoretically distinct incentivized elicitations than those for which they are intended to proxy. Third, relationships between qualitative self-assessments and various attributes—including geographical location, demographics, and behaviors—are unrelated to variation in incentivized elicitations. Fourth, qualitative self-assessments are no simpler for participants than incentivized elicitations: these questions show a common heuristic of extreme or midpoint responses, especially by individuals with lower cognitive ability.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan Chapman & Pietro Ortoleva & Erik Snowberg & Leeat Yariv & Colin Camerer, 2025. "Reassessing Qualitative Self-Assessments and Experimental Validation," CESifo Working Paper Series 11703, CESifo.
  • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_11703
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp11703.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    econographics; self-assessments; risk preferences; time preferences; social preferences; preference elicitation; experimental validation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D90 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - General

    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:ces:ceswps:_11703. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    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.