Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userBelief Error and Non-Bayesian Social Learning: Experimental Evidence
88
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
This paper experimentally studies whether individuals hold a first-order belief that others apply Bayes rule to incorporate private information into their beliefs, which is a fundamental assumption in many Bayesian and non-Bayesian social learning models. We design a novel experimental setting in which the first-order belief assumption implies that social information is equivalent to private information. Our main finding is that participants reported reservation prices of social information are significantly lower than those of private information, which provides evidence that casts doubt on the first-order belief assumption. We also build a novel belief error model in which participants form a random posterior belief with a Bayesian posterior belief kernel to explain the experimental findings. A structural estimation of the model suggests that participants sophisticated consideration of others belief error and their exaggeration of the error both contribute to the difference in reservation prices.
rate research
Read More
An increasing number of politicians are relying on cheaper, easier to access technologies such as online social media platforms to communicate with their constituency. These platforms present a cheap and low-barrier channel of communication to politicians, potentially intensifying political competition by allowing many to enter political races. In this study, we demonstrate that lowering costs of communication, which allows many entrants to come into a competitive market, can strengthen an incumbents position when the newcomers compete by providing more information to the voters. We show an asymmetric bad-news-good-news effect where early negative news hurts the challengers more than the positive news benefit them, such that in aggregate, an incumbent politicians chances of winning is higher with more entrants in the market. Our findings indicate that communication through social media and other platforms can intensify competition, how-ever incumbency advantage may be strengthened rather than weakened as an outcome of higher number of entrants into a political market.
Decades of research suggest that information exchange in groups and organizations can reliably improve judgment accuracy in tasks such as financial forecasting, market research, and medical decision-making. However, we show that improving the accuracy of numeric estimates does not necessarily improve the accuracy of decisions. For binary choice judgments, also known as classification tasks--e.g. yes/no or build/buy decisions--social influence is most likely to grow the majority vote share, regardless of the accuracy of that opinion. As a result, initially inaccurate groups become increasingly inaccurate after information exchange even as they signal stronger support. We term this dynamic the crowd classification problem. Using both a novel dataset as well as a reanalysis of three previous datasets, we study this process in two types of information exchange: (1) when people share votes only, and (2) when people form and exchange numeric estimates prior to voting. Surprisingly, when people exchange numeric estimates prior to voting, the binary choice vote can become less accurate even as the average numeric estimate becomes more accurate. Our findings recommend against voting as a form of decision-making when groups are optimizing for accuracy. For those cases where voting is required, we discuss strategies for managing communication to avoid the crowd classification problem. We close with a discussion of how our results contribute to a broader contingency theory of collective intelligence.
We determine winners and losers of immigration using a general equilibrium search and matching model in which native and non-native employees, who are heterogeneous with respect to their skill level, produce different types of goods. Unemployment benefits and the provision of public goods are financed by a progressive taxation on wages and profits. The estimation of the baseline model for Italy shows that the presence of non-natives in 2017 led real wages of low and high-skilled employees to be 4% lower and 8% higher, respectively. Profits of employers in the low-skilled market were 6% lower, while those of employers in the high-skilled market were 10% higher. At aggregate level, total GDP was 14% higher, GDP per worker and the per capita provision of public goods 4% higher, while government revenues and social security contributions raised by 70 billion euros and 18 billion euros, respectively.
In this paper we propose a theoretical model including a susceptible-infected-recovered-dead (SIRD) model of epidemic in a dynamic macroeconomic general equilibrium framework with agents mobility. The latter affect both their income (and consumption) and their probability of infecting and of being infected. Strategic complementarities among individual mobility choices drive the evolution of aggregate economic activity, while infection externalities caused by individual mobility affect disease diffusion. Rational expectations of forward looking agents on the dynamics of aggregate mobility and epidemic determine individual mobility decisions. The model allows to evaluate alternative scenarios of mobility restrictions, especially policies dependent on the state of epidemic. We prove the existence of an equilibrium and provide a recursive construction method for finding equilibrium(a), which also guides our numerical investigations. We calibrate the model by using Italian experience on COVID-19 epidemic in the period February 2020 - May 2021. We discuss how our economic SIRD (ESIRD) model produces a substantially different dynamics of economy and epidemic with respect to a SIRD model with constant agents mobility. Finally, by numerical explorations we illustrate how the model can be used to design an efficient policy of state-of-epidemic-dependent mobility restrictions, which mitigates the epidemic peaks stressing health system, and allows for trading-off the economic losses due to reduced mobility with the lower death rate due to the lower spread of epidemic.
The inventories carried in a supply chain as a strategic tool to influence the competing firms are considered to be strategic inventories (SI). We present a two-period game-theoretic supply chain model, in which a singular manufacturer supplies products to a pair of identical Cournot duopolistic retailers. We show that the SI carried by the retailers under dynamic contract is Pareto-dominating for the manufacturer, retailers, consumers, the channel, and the society as well. We also find that retailers SI, however, can be eliminated when the manufacturer commits wholesale contract or inventory holding cost is too high. In comparing the cases with and without downstream competition, we also show that the downstream Cournot duopoly undermines the profits for the retailers, but benefits all others.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
