IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_11757.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Weighting Competing Models

Author

Listed:
  • Chiara Aina
  • Florian H. Schneider

Abstract

We study how individuals update their beliefs in the presence of competing data-generating processes, or models, that could explain observed data. Through experiments, we identify the weights participants assign to different models and find that the most common updating rule gives full weight to the model that best fits the data. While some participants assign positive weights to multiple models—consistent with Bayesian updating—they often do so in a systematically biased manner. Moreover, these biases in model weighting frequently lead participants to become more certain about a state regardless of the data, violating a core property of Bayesian updating.

Suggested Citation

  • Chiara Aina & Florian H. Schneider, 2025. "Weighting Competing Models," CESifo Working Paper Series 11757, CESifo.
  • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_11757
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp11757.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gilboa Itzhak & Schmeidler David, 1993. "Updating Ambiguous Beliefs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 33-49, February.
    2. Joshua Schwartzstein & Adi Sunderam, 2021. "Using Models to Persuade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(1), pages 276-323, January.
    3. Roland G FryerJr & Philipp Harms & Matthew O Jackson, 2019. "Updating Beliefs when Evidence is Open to Interpretation: Implications for Bias and Polarization," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(5), pages 1470-1501.
    4. Pedro Bordalo & John J. Conlon & Nicola Gennaioli & Spencer Yongwook Kwon & Andrei Shleifer, 2023. "How People Use Statistics," NBER Working Papers 31631, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
      • Pedro Bordalo & John Conlon & Nicola Gennaioli & Spencer Kwon & Andrei Shleifer, 2023. "How People Use Statistics," Working Papers 699, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    5. David M. Grether, 1980. "Bayes Rule as a Descriptive Model: The Representativeness Heuristic," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 95(3), pages 537-557.
    6. Oechssler, Jörg & Roider, Andreas & Schmitz, Patrick W., 2009. "Cognitive abilities and behavioral biases," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 147-152, October.
    7. Sandro Ambuehl & Heidi C. Thysen, 2024. "Choosing between Causal Interpretations: An Experimental Study," CESifo Working Paper Series 11103, CESifo.
    8. Barberis, Nicholas & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert, 1998. "A model of investor sentiment," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 307-343, September.
    9. Stefano DellaVigna & Devin Pope, 2018. "What Motivates Effort? Evidence and Expert Forecasts," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 85(2), pages 1029-1069.
    10. Levy, Gilat & Razin, Ronny, 2021. "A maximum likelihood approach to combining forecasts," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 104116, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Kfir Eliaz & Ran Spiegler, 2020. "A Model of Competing Narratives," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(12), pages 3786-3816, December.
    12. Hoppe, Eva I. & Kusterer, David J., 2011. "Behavioral biases and cognitive reflection," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 110(2), pages 97-100, February.
    13. J. Aislinn Bohren & Daniel N. Hauser, 2024. "Behavioral Foundations of Model Misspecification," PIER Working Paper Archive 24-032, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    14. Dan Ariely & Anat Bracha & Stephan Meier, 2009. "Doing Good or Doing Well? Image Motivation and Monetary Incentives in Behaving Prosocially," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(1), pages 544-555, March.
    15. Kfir Eliaz & Ran Spiegler & Yair Weiss, 2021. "Cheating with Models," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 3(4), pages 417-434, December.
    16. Chad Kendall & Ryan Oprea, 2024. "On the complexity of forming mental models," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 15(1), pages 175-211, January.
    17. Levy, Gilat & Razin, Ronny, 2021. "A Maximum Likelihood Approach to Combining Forecasts," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 16(1), January.
    18. Benjamin Enke & Thomas Graeber, 2023. "Cognitive Uncertainty," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(4), pages 2021-2067.
    19. David Danz & Lise Vesterlund & Alistair J. Wilson, 2022. "Belief Elicitation and Behavioral Incentive Compatibility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(9), pages 2851-2883, September.
    20. Matthew Rabin & Joel L. Schrag, 1999. "First Impressions Matter: A Model of Confirmatory Bias," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(1), pages 37-82.
    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. Pedro Gonzalez-Fernandez, 2024. "Belief Bias Identification," Papers 2404.09297, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2024.
    2. Olivier Compte, 2023. "Belief formation and the persistence of biased beliefs," Papers 2310.08466, arXiv.org.
    3. Alice Soldà & Marie Claire Villeval, 2025. "Narratives as a Persuasion Tool in Performance Appraisals," Working Papers 2505, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    4. Ritika & Nawal Kishor, 2020. "Development and validation of behavioral biases scale: a SEM approach," Review of Behavioral Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 14(2), pages 237-259, November.
    5. Mohammad Noori, 2016. "Cognitive reflection as a predictor of susceptibility to behavioral anomalies," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(1), pages 114-120, January.
    6. Kai Barron, 2021. "Belief updating: does the ‘good-news, bad-news’ asymmetry extend to purely financial domains?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 31-58, March.
    7. Benjamin Enke & Uri Gneezy & Brian Hall & David Martin & Vadim Nelidov & Theo Offerman & Jeroen van de Ven, 2020. "Cognitive Biases: Mistakes or Missing Stakes?," CESifo Working Paper Series 8168, CESifo.
    8. Brice Corgnet & Mark Desantis & David Porter, 2018. "What Makes a Good Trader? On the Role of Intuition and Reflection on Trader Performance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 73(3), pages 1113-1137, June.
    9. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Umut Keskin & Olivier l’Haridon & Chen Li, 2018. "The Effect of Learning on Ambiguity Attitudes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 2181-2198, May.
    10. Katherine B. Coffman & Scott Kostyshak & Perihan O. Saygin & Katie Coffman, 2024. "Choosing and Using Information in Evaluation Decisions," CESifo Working Paper Series 11024, CESifo.
    11. David Hirshleifer, 2001. "Investor Psychology and Asset Pricing," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(4), pages 1533-1597, August.
    12. Daniel J. Benjamin, 2018. "Errors in Probabilistic Reasoning and Judgment Biases," NBER Working Papers 25200, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Zimper, Alexander, 2023. "Unrealized arbitrage opportunities in naive equilibria with non-Bayesian belief processes," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 27-41.
    14. Rabin, Matthew, 2000. "Inference by Believers in the Law of Small Numbers," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt4sw8n41t, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    15. J. Aislinn Bohren & Daniel N. Hauser, 2023. "Behavioral Foundations of Model Misspecification," PIER Working Paper Archive 23-007, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    16. Duttle, Kai, 2015. "Disentangling two causes of biased probability judgment: Cognitive skills and perception of randomness," Ruhr Economic Papers 568, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    17. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Hügelschäfer, Sabine, 2012. "Faith in intuition and behavioral biases," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 182-192.
    18. Peter Andre & Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2021. "Narratives about the Macroeconomy," CEBI working paper series 21-18, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
    19. Paul Grass & Philipp Schirmer & Malin Siemers, 2025. "Sticky Models," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 355, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    20. Gerrit Bauch & Manuel Foerster, 2024. "Strategic communication of narratives," Papers 2410.23259, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    belief updating; narratives; mental models; experiments;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • D90 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - General
    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - 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:_11757. 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: 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.