Ingroup Bias in a Social Learning Experiment

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xue Xu ◽  
Wenbo Zou
Keyword(s):  
Social Learning ◽  
Ingroup Bias ◽  
Learning Experiment

scholarly journals Information choice in a social learning experiment

2019 ◽  
Vol 118 ◽  
pp. 295-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Duffy ◽  
Ed Hopkins ◽  
Tatiana Kornienko ◽  
Mingye Ma
Keyword(s):  
Social Learning ◽  
Learning Experiment

scholarly journals Information redundancy neglect versus overconfidence: a social learning experiment

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Jehiel ◽  
Antonio Guarino ◽  
Marco Angrisani ◽  
Toru Kitagawa
Keyword(s):  
Social Learning ◽  
Information Redundancy ◽  
Learning Experiment

scholarly journals Non-Bayesian Updating in a Social Learning Experiment

2021 ◽  
pp. 105188
Author(s):  
Roberta De Filippis ◽  
Antonio Guarino ◽  
Philippe Jehiel ◽  
Toru Kitagawa
Keyword(s):  
Social Learning ◽  
Bayesian Updating ◽  
Learning Experiment

scholarly journals A comparison of endogenous and exogenous timing in a social learning experiment

2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-166
Author(s):  
Lukas Meub ◽  
Till Proeger ◽  
Hendrik Hüning
Keyword(s):  
Social Learning ◽  
Learning Experiment

scholarly journals Updating ambiguous beliefs in a social learning experiment

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberta De Filippis ◽  
Antonio Guarino ◽  
Philippe Jehiel ◽  
Toru Kitagawa
Keyword(s):  
Social Learning ◽  
Learning Experiment

scholarly journals Information Redundancy Neglect versus Overconfidence: A Social Learning Experiment

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 163-197
Author(s):  
Marco Angrisani ◽  
Antonio Guarino ◽  
Philippe Jehiel ◽  
Toru Kitagawa
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Learning ◽  
Bounded Rationality ◽  
Action Space ◽  
Space Experiment ◽  
Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium ◽  
Information Redundancy ◽  
Continuous Action ◽  
Learning Experiment ◽  
Bayesian Equilibrium

We study social learning in a continuous action space experiment. Subjects, acting in sequence, state their beliefs about the value of a good after observing their predecessors’ statements and a private signal. We compare the behavior in the laboratory with the Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium prediction and the predictions of bounded rationality models of decision-making: the redundancy of information neglect model and the overconfidence model. The results of our experiment are in line with the predictions of the overconfidence model and at odds with the others’. (JEL C91, D12, D82, D83)

scholarly journals Mere membership

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yarrow Dunham
Keyword(s):  
Social Learning ◽  
Social Organization ◽  
Social Groups ◽  
Ingroup Bias ◽  
Interpersonal Interactions ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Variation Versus ◽  
Ingroup Outgroup ◽  
Social Collective ◽  
Ingroup Favoritism

Human social groups are central to social organization and pervasively impact interpersonal interactions. While immensely varied, all social groups can also be considered specific instantiations of a common and abstract ingroup-outgroup structure. How much of the power of human social groups stems from learned variation versus abstract commonality? I review evidence demonstrating that from early in development a wide range of intergroup phenomena, most prominently many ingroup biases, follow solely from simple membership in an abstract social collective. Such effects cannot be attributed to rich social learning and so: a) constrain theories seeking to explain or intervene on ingroup bias, and b) provide reason to think that our species is powerfully predisposed towards ingroup favoritism from early in development.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document