A method to elicit beliefs as most likely intervals
Journal Title: Judgment and Decision Making - Year 2015, Vol 10, Issue 5
Abstract
We show how to elicit the beliefs of an expert in the form of a “most likely interval”, a set of future outcomes that are deemed more likely than any other outcome. Our method, called the Most Likely Interval elicitation rule (MLI), asks the expert for an interval and pays according to how well the answer compares to the actual outcome. We show that the MLI performs well in economic experiments, and satisfies a number of desirable theoretical properties such as robustness to the risk preferences of the expert.
Authors and Affiliations
Karl H. Schlag and Joël J. van der Weele
Keywords
Related Articles
- EP ID EP678198
- DOI -
- Views 151
- Downloads 0
The category size bias: A mere misunderstanding
Redundant or excessive information can sometimes lead people to lean on it unnecessarily. Certain experimental designs can sometimes bias results in the researcher’s favor. And, sometimes, interesting effects are too sma...
Threshold models of recognition and the recognition heuristic
According to the recognition heuristic (RH) theory, decisions follow the recognition principle: Given a high validity of the recognition cue, people should prefer recognized choice options compared to unrecognized ones....
Risks deter but pleasures allure: Is pleasure more important?
The pursuit of unhealthy behaviors, such as smoking or binge drinking, not only carries various downside risks, but also provides pleasure. A parsimonious model, used in the literature to explain the decision to pursue a...
Psychometric characteristics of two forms of the Slovak version of the Indecisiveness Scale
The study investigates the psychometric characteristics of the Slovak version of the original and short form of the Indecisiveness Scale on three samples of university students and one general population sample. An explo...
Bullshit for you; transcendence for me. A commentary on “On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit”
I raise a methodological concern regarding the study performed by Pennycook, Cheyne, Barr, Koehler & Fugelsang (2015), in which they used randomly generated, but syntactically correct, statements that were rated for prof...