IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-04911749.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How much do we learn? Measuring symmetric and asymmetric deviations from Bayesian updating through choices

Author

Listed:
  • Ilke Aydogan

    (IÉSEG School Of Management [Puteaux], LEM - Lille économie management - UMR 9221 - UA - Université d'Artois - UCL - Université catholique de Lille - Université de Lille - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Aurélien Baillon

    (EM - EMLyon Business School, GATE Lyon Saint-Étienne - Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon - Saint-Etienne - UL2 - Université Lumière - Lyon 2 - UJM - Université Jean Monnet - Saint-Étienne - EM - EMLyon Business School - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Emmanuel Kemel

    (GREGHEC - Groupement de Recherche et d'Etudes en Gestion - HEC Paris - Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Chen Li

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

Abstract

Belief‐updating biases hinder the correction of inaccurate beliefs and lead to suboptimal decisions. We complement Rabin and Schrag's (1999) portable extension of the Bayesian model by including conservatism in addition to confirmatory bias. Additionally, we show how to identify these two forms of biases from choices. In an experiment, we found that the subjects exhibited confirmatory bias by misreading 19% of the signals that contradicted their priors. They were also conservative and acted as if they missed 28% of the signals.

Suggested Citation

  • Ilke Aydogan & Aurélien Baillon & Emmanuel Kemel & Chen Li, 2025. "How much do we learn? Measuring symmetric and asymmetric deviations from Bayesian updating through choices," Post-Print hal-04911749, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04911749
    DOI: 10.3982/qe2094
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-04911749v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-04911749v1/document
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3982/qe2094?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Non-Bayesian updating; conservatism; confirmatory bias; perceived signals; belief elicitation;
    All these keywords.

    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:hal:journl:hal-04911749. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.