Individual Updating of Subjective Probability of Homicide Victimization: a "Natural Experiment'' on Risk Communication
个体主观凶杀受害概率的更新：风险沟通的“自然实验”AI 解读 ↓
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明
本页整理公开书目信息，不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成，未完成全文核验，可能有误；具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本，未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要；缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
本页为预印本版本；arXiv 收录、作者填写的期刊信息以及作者既有发表经历，都不单独证明本篇已接收。作者发表记录按 OpenAlex 身份与完整姓名、本站覆盖期刊 ISSN 及正式卷期核对，只展示已核实例，档案仍可能误合并。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录，不合计多个记录；关联记录可能包含正式发表版本，不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零，引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配，同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列，再参考通用方法与发表日期。
分类依据与纠错
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类：摘要建模是否更新信念的个体决策，并利用访员随机分配的信息自然实验。
反馈分类问题
正在核对关联版本…
代码、数据与补充材料
正在核对对应版本的资源…
个体主观凶杀受害概率的更新：风险沟通的“自然实验”
- 研究问题
- 个体遭遇风险信息冲击后为何更新或坚持原有凶杀受害概率判断，受访者与访员特征如何影响更新选择及新的判断水平？
- 方法与思路
- 作者构建两个计量模型描述更新决策与先验坚持，利用巴西家庭数据及访员随机分配带来的信息“自然实验”开展分析。
- 材料陈述的贡献
- 摘要称，较高先验更易伴随更新，年龄、性别和访员教育影响更新行为，并以信息质量或可信度解释部分个体的怀疑态度。
- 阅读关注点
- 阅读时应核对随机分配如何产生信息冲击、更新决策与更新幅度的模型结构，以及个体特征关联与因果解释的区分。
- 阅读边界
- 本条依据 arXiv 预印本摘要，同行评审与接收未核实；摘要未说明信息干预内容、模型识别条件及随机分配的具体执行方式。
原文摘要
We investigate the dynamics of the update of subjective homicide victimization risk after an informational shock by developing two econometric models able to accommodate both optimal decisions of changing prior expectations which enable us to rationalize skeptical Bayesian agents with their disregard to new information. We apply our models to a unique household data (N = 4,030) that consists of socioeconomic and victimization expectation variables in Brazil, coupled with an informational ``natural experiment'' brought by the sample design methodology, which randomized interviewers to interviewees. The higher priors about their own subjective homicide victimization risk are set, the more likely individuals are to change their initial perceptions. In case of an update, we find that elders and females are more reluctant to change priors and choose the new response level. In addition, even though the respondents' level of education is not significant, the interviewers' level of education has a key role in changing and updating decisions. The results show that our econometric approach fits reasonable well the available empirical evidence, stressing the salient role heterogeneity represented by individual characteristics of interviewees and interviewers have on belief updating and lack of it, say, skepticism. Furthermore, we can rationalize skeptics through an informational quality/credibility argument.