IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/unm/umaror/2009001.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The non-use of Bayes rule: representative evidence on bounded rationality

Author

Listed:
  • Dohmen, T.J.

    (Research Centre for Educ and Labour Mark)

  • Falk, A.

    (Externe publicaties SBE)

  • Huffman, D.

    (Externe publicaties SBE)

  • Marklein, F.
  • Sunde, U.

    (Externe publicaties SBE)

Abstract

The ability to process new information and to compute conditional probabilities iscrucial for making appropriate decisions under uncertainty. In this paper, weinvestigate the capability of inferring conditional probabilities in a representativesample of the German population. Our results show that only a small fraction ofthe population responds consistently with Bayes'' rule. Instead, most individualseither neglect the base probability, or the arrival of new information, in theirresponses. The probability to give normatively correct answers decreases with thelevel of education.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstr
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Dohmen, T.J. & Falk, A. & Huffman, D. & Marklein, F. & Sunde, U., 2009. "The non-use of Bayes rule: representative evidence on bounded rationality," ROA Research Memorandum 001, Maastricht University, Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA).
    • Handle: RePEc:unm:umaror:2009001
    DOI: 10.26481/umaror.2009001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/ws/files/1323133/guid-5051a938-ee3d-4afe-9d95-2b5f215fc7f0-ASSET1.0.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.26481/umaror.2009001?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2010. "Are Risk Aversion and Impatience Related to Cognitive Ability?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 1238-1260, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Viscusi, W Kip & O'Connor, Charles J, 1984. "Adaptive Responses to Chemical Labeling: Are Workers Bayesian Decision Makers?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(5), pages 942-956, December.
    4. Gary Charness & Dan Levin, 2005. "When Optimal Choices Feel Wrong: A Laboratory Study of Bayesian Updating, Complexity, and Affect," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1300-1309, September.
    5. John Conlisk, 1996. "Why Bounded Rationality?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 34(2), pages 669-700, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Dohmen, Thomas, 2014. "Behavioral labor economics: Advances and future directions," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 71-85.
    3. Christine Ohlert & Barbara Weißenberger, 2015. "Beating the base-rate fallacy: an experimental approach on the effectiveness of different information presentation formats," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 51-80, April.
    4. Salvatore Nunnari & Giovanni Montari, 2019. "Audi Alteram Partem: An Experiment on Selective Exposure to Information," Working Papers 650, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.

    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. Dohmen, Thomas & Falk, Armin & Huffman, David & Marklein, Felix & Sunde, Uwe, 2009. "Biased probability judgment: Evidence of incidence and relationship to economic outcomes from a representative sample," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 903-915, December.
    2. Lex Borghans & Bas ter Weel, 2008. "Understanding the Technology of Computer Technology Diffusion: Explaining Computer Adoption Patterns and Implications for the Wage Structure," Journal of Income Distribution, Ad libros publications inc., vol. 17(3-4), pages 37-70, September.
    3. Jason Shachat & Anand Srinivasan, 2022. "Informational Price Cascades and Non-Aggregation of Asymmetric Information in Experimental Asset Markets," Journal of Behavioral Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(4), pages 388-407, November.
    4. McLeish, Kendra N & Oxoby, Robert J, 2006. "Measuring Impatience: Elicited Discount Rates and the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale," MPRA Paper 1524, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Gary Charness & Dan Levin, 2005. "When Optimal Choices Feel Wrong: A Laboratory Study of Bayesian Updating, Complexity, and Affect," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1300-1309, September.
    6. 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.
    7. repec:diw:diwwpp:dp1645 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. François Poinas & Julie Rosaz & Béatrice Roussillon, 2012. "Updating beliefs with imperfect signals: Experimental evidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 219-241, June.
    9. Salvatore Nunnari & Giovanni Montari, 2019. "Audi Alteram Partem: An Experiment on Selective Exposure to Information," Working Papers 650, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    10. Armin Falk & Florian Zimmermann, 2011. "Preferences for Consistency," CESifo Working Paper Series 3528, CESifo.
    11. David Hirshleifer, 2001. "Investor Psychology and Asset Pricing," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(4), pages 1533-1597, August.
    12. McFadden, Brandon R. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2015. "Cognitive biases in the assimilation of scientific information on global warming and genetically modified food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 35-43.
    13. Jonathan Chapman & Mark Dean & Pietro Ortoleva & Erik Snowberg & Colin Camerer, 2023. "Econographics," Journal of Political Economy Microeconomics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 115-161.
    14. Antoniou, Constantinos & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten I. & Read, Daniel, 2017. "Information Characteristics and Errors in Expectations: Experimental Evidence," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(2), pages 737-750, April.
    15. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Hügelschäfer, Sabine, 2012. "Faith in intuition and behavioral biases," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 182-192.
    16. Gary Charness & Edi Karni & Dan Levin, 2007. "Individual and group decision making under risk: An experimental study of Bayesian updating and violations of first-order stochastic dominance," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 129-148, October.
    17. Tatyana Deryugina, 2013. "How do people update? The effects of local weather fluctuations on beliefs about global warming," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 118(2), pages 397-416, May.
    18. Oyarzun, Carlos & Sanjurjo, Adam & Nguyen, Hien, 2017. "Response functions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 1-31.
    19. Bachmann, Kremena, 2024. "Do you have a choice?: Implications for belief updating and the disposition effect," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    20. Dickinson, David L. & McElroy, Todd, 2019. "Bayesian versus heuristic-based choice under sleep restriction and suboptimal times of day," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 48-59.
    21. Markus M. Möbius & Muriel Niederle & Paul Niehaus & Tanya S. Rosenblat, 2022. "Managing Self-Confidence: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(11), pages 7793-7817, November.

    More about this item

    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:unm:umaror:2009001. 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: Andrea Willems or Leonne Portz (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/romaanl.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.