Authors: Daniel F. Stone and Basit Zafar
-
-
The New York Innovation Center bridges the worlds of finance, technology, and innovation and generates insights into high-value central bank-related opportunities.
Do you have a request for information and records? Learn how to submit it.
Learn about the history of the New York Fed and central banking in the United States through articles, speeches, photos and video.
-
-
-
The Governance & Culture Reform hub is designed to foster discussion about corporate governance and the reform of culture and behavior in the financial services industry.
Need to file a report with the New York Fed? Here are all of the forms, instructions and other information related to regulatory and statistical reporting in one spot.
The New York Fed works to protect consumers as well as provides information and resources on how to avoid and report specific scams.
-
-
-
The New York Innovation Center bridges the worlds of finance, technology, and innovation and generates insights into high-value central bank-related opportunities.
The growing role of nonbank financial institutions, or NBFIs, in U.S. financial markets is a transformational trend with implications for monetary policy and financial stability.
The New York Fed offers the Central Banking Seminar and several specialized courses for central bankers and financial supervisors.
-
-
Staff Reports
Bayesian Social Learning, Conformity, and Stubbornness: Evidence from the AP Top 25
2014 June 2010 Number 453
JEL classification: D80, D83, D84
The recent nonexperimental literature on social learning focuses on showing that observational learning exists, that is, individuals do indeed draw inferences by observing the actions of others. We take this literature a step further by analyzing whether individuals are Bayesian social learners. We use data from the Associated Press (AP) U.S. College Football Poll, a weekly subjective ranking of the top twenty-five teams. The voters’ aggregate rankings are available each week prior to when voters have to update their individual rankings, so voters can potentially learn from their peers. We find that peer rankings: 1) are informative, as conditioning on them improves the accuracy of our estimated Bayesian posterior rankings in a nontrivial way, and 2) influence the way voters adjust their rankings, but the influence is less than the Bayesian amount. Voters’ revisions are closer to Bayesian when the ranked team loses as compared to when it wins, which we attribute to losses being less ambiguous and more salient signals. We find evidence of significant voter heterogeneity, and that voters are less responsive to peer rankings after they have been on the poll a few years. We interpret the data to imply that reputation motives cause voters to “conform,” but not enough to overcome the overall tendency to underreact to social information, that is, to be “stubborn.”
Available only in PDF
36 pages / 230 kb
36 pages / 230 kbTools
E-mail Alerts
By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Statement. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Statement. 
