[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ipp/wpaper/2002.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Some Conditions (Not) Affecting Selection Neglect: Evidence From The Lab

Author

Listed:
  • Raúl López-Pérez
  • Ágnes Pintér
  • Rocío Sánchez-Mangas
Abstract
People often extrapolate from data samples, inferring properties of the population like the rate of some event, class, or group - e.g. the percent of female scientists, the crime rate, the chances to suffer some illness. In many circumstances, though, the sample observed is non-random, i.e., affected by sampling bias. For instance, news media rarely display (intentionally or not) a balanced view of the state of the world, focusing particularly on dramatic and rare events. In this line, recent literature in Economics hints that people often fail to account for sample selection in their inferences. We here offer evidence of this phenomenon at an individual level in a tightly controlled lab setting and explore conditions for its occurrence. If the inference problem is simple enough, we conjecture that the key condition is the existence of ambiguity, i.e., non-quantifiable uncertainty, about the selection rule. In this vein, we find no evidence for selection neglect in an experimental treatment, in which subjects must infer the frequency of some event given a non-random sample knowing the exact selection rule. We also consider two treatments of similar complexity where the selection rule is ambiguous. Here, in contrast, people extrapolate as if sampling were random. Further, they become more and more confident in the accuracy of their guesses as the experiment proceeds, even when the evidence accumulated patently signals a selection issue and hence warrants some caution in the inferences made. This is also true when the instructions give explicit clues about selection problems. The evidence suggests that the mere accumulation of evidence, i.e., a larger sample, will not make people more circumspect about the quality of the sample and hence about the inferences derived from it in a selection problem, even if the sample becomes obviously biased as it grows and people are reminded of the existence of potential sampling issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Raúl López-Pérez & Ágnes Pintér & Rocío Sánchez-Mangas, 2020. "Some Conditions (Not) Affecting Selection Neglect: Evidence From The Lab," Working Papers 2002, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    • Handle: RePEc:ipp:wpaper:2002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://investigacion.cchs.csic.es/RePEc/ipp/wpaper/ipp_wp_2_2020_sampling_bias.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel J. Benjamin & Matthew Rabin & Collin Raymond, 2016. "A Model of Nonbelief in the Law of Large Numbers," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 14(2), pages 515-544.
    2. Philippe Jehiel, 2018. "Investment Strategy and Selection Bias: An Equilibrium Perspective on Overoptimism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(6), pages 1582-1597, June.
    3. Simon Gächter & Elke Renner, 2010. "The effects of (incentivized) belief elicitation in public goods experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(3), pages 364-377, September.
    4. Muriel Niederle & Lise Vesterlund, 2007. "Do Women Shy Away From Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(3), pages 1067-1101.
    5. Pietro Ortoleva & Erik Snowberg, 2015. "Overconfidence in Political Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(2), pages 504-535, February.
    6. Matthew Rabin, 2002. "Inference by Believers in the Law of Small Numbers," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(3), pages 775-816.
    7. Sendhil Mullainathan & Andrei Shleifer, 2005. "The Market for News," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1031-1053, September.
    8. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    9. Benjamin Enke, 2020. "What You See Is All There Is," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(3), pages 1363-1398.
    10. Barberis, Nicholas & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert, 1998. "A model of investor sentiment," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 307-343, September.
    11. Ginger Zhe Jin & Michael Luca & Daniel Martin, 2021. "Is No News (Perceived As) Bad News? An Experimental Investigation of Information Disclosure," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(2), pages 141-173, May.
    12. Felipe A. Araujo & Stephanie W. Wang & Alistair J. Wilson, 2021. "The Times They Are A-Changing: Experimenting with Dynamic Adverse Selection," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(4), pages 1-22, November.
    13. Kai Barron & Steffen Huck & Philippe Jehiel, 2024. "Everyday Econometricians: Selection Neglect and Overoptimism When Learning from Others," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 16(3), pages 162-198, August.
    14. Kagel, John H. & Levin, Dan, 1986. "The Winner's Curse and Public Information in Common Value Auctions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(5), pages 894-920, December.
    15. Peter M. DeMarzo & Dimitri Vayanos & Jeffrey Zwiebel, 2003. "Persuasion Bias, Social Influence, and Unidimensional Opinions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(3), pages 909-968.
    16. Jonathan J. Koehler & Molly Mercer, 2009. "Selection Neglect in Mutual Fund Advertisements," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(7), pages 1107-1121, July.
    17. Ignacio Esponda & Emanuel Vespa, 2018. "Endogenous sample selection: A laboratory study," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(1), pages 183-216, March.
    18. Fellner, Gerlinde & Maciejovsky, Boris, 2007. "Risk attitude and market behavior: Evidence from experimental asset markets," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 338-350, June.
    19. Gilat Levy & Ronny Razin, 2019. "Echo Chambers and Their Effects on Economic and Political Outcomes," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 11(1), pages 303-328, August.
    20. Peter Streufert, 2000. "The Effect of Underclass Social Isolation on Schooling Choice," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 2(4), pages 461-482, October.
    21. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    22. Gilat Levy & Ronny Razin, 2015. "Correlation Neglect, Voting Behavior, and Information Aggregation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(4), pages 1634-1645, April.
    23. Sendhil Mullainathan & Andrei Shleifer, 2005. "The Market for News," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1031-1053, September.
    24. 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.
    25. Ignacio Esponda Jr. & Emanuel Vespa Jr., 2014. "Hypothetical Thinking and Information Extraction in the Laboratory," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 6(4), pages 180-202, November.
    26. Sendhil Mullainathan, 2002. "A Memory-Based Model of Bounded Rationality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(3), pages 735-774.
    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. Annekatrin Schrenker, 2023. "Causal Misperceptions of the Part-Time Pay Gap," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 2031, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    2. Annekatrin Schrenker, 2023. "Causal Misperceptions of the Part-Time Pay Gap," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 372, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    3. Annekatrin Schrenker, 2023. "Causal Misperceptions of the Part-Time Pay Gap," Berlin School of Economics Discussion Papers 0010, Berlin School of Economics.
    4. Backhaus, Teresa & Schäper, Clara & Schrenker, Annekatrin, 2023. "Causal misperceptions of the part-time pay gap," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).

    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. Cheng, Ing-Haw & Hsiaw, Alice, 2022. "Distrust in experts and the origins of disagreement," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    2. Mira Frick & Ryota Iijima & Yuhta Ishii, 2018. "Dispersed Behavior and Perceptions in Assortative Societies," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2128R2, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Oct 2021.
    3. López-Pérez, Raúl & Rodriguez-Moral, Antonio & Vorsatz, Marc, 2021. "Simplified mental representations as a cause of overprecision," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    4. Mira Frick & Ryota Iijima & Yuhta Ishii, 2018. "Dispersed Behavior and Perceptions in Assortative Societies," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2128R3, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Jun 2022.
    5. Kai Barron & Steffen Huck & Philippe Jehiel, 2024. "Everyday Econometricians: Selection Neglect and Overoptimism When Learning from Others," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 16(3), pages 162-198, August.
    6. Backhaus, Teresa & Schäper, Clara & Schrenker, Annekatrin, 2023. "Causal misperceptions of the part-time pay gap," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    7. Delavande, Adeline & Zafar, Basit, 2018. "Information and anti-American attitudes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 1-31.
    8. Kai Barron & Christina Gravert, 2022. "Confidence and Career Choices: An Experiment," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 124(1), pages 35-68, January.
    9. Mira Frick & Ryota Iijima & Yuhta Ishii, 2020. "Misinterpreting Others and the Fragility of Social Learning," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(6), pages 2281-2328, November.
    10. Germano, Fabrizio & Sobbrio, Francesco, 2020. "Opinion dynamics via search engines (and other algorithmic gatekeepers)," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    11. 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.
    12. Windsteiger, Lisa, 2022. "The redistributive consequences of segregation and misperceptions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    13. Inés Moreno de Barreda & Gilat Levy & Ronny Razin, 2017. "Persuasion with Correlation Neglect: Media Power via Correlation of News Content," Economics Series Working Papers 836, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    14. Kai Barron & Tilman Fries, 2023. "Narrative Persuasion," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 469, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    15. 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.
    16. Fernando ESTRADA, 2010. "Theory Of Argumentation In Financial Markets," Journal of Advanced Studies in Finance, ASERS Publishing, vol. 1(1), pages 18-22.
    17. Daniel J. Benjamin, 2018. "Errors in Probabilistic Reasoning and Judgment Biases," NBER Working Papers 25200, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Miklánek, Tomáš & Zajíček, Miroslav, 2020. "Personal traits and trading in an experimental asset market," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    19. Bing Han & David Hirshleifer & Johan Walden, 2023. "Visibility Bias in the Transmission of Consumption Beliefs and Undersaving," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 78(3), pages 1647-1704, June.
    20. Jan Feld & Edwin Ip & Andreas Leibbrandt & Joseph Vecci, 2022. "Identifying and Overcoming Gender Barriers in Tech: A Field Experiment on Inaccurate Statistical Discrimination," CESifo Working Paper Series 9970, CESifo.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Ambiguity; Beliefs; Experiments; Extrapolation; Sampling Bias; Selection Problem;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making

    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:ipp:wpaper:2002. 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: Adelheid Holl (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ippcses.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.