Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
B. Barber, Terrance Odean, Paul Thomas, David Moore, Paine Webber, Del Guercio, David Hirshleifer, Andrew Karolyi, Tim Loughran, Edward Opton, Sylvester Schieber, A. Shleifer, Martha Starr-Mccluer, Richard Thaler, Luis Viceira (2001)
Boys Will Be Boys: Gender, Overconfidence, and Common Stock Investment* the Gallup Organization for Providing Survey Data. We Appreciate the Comments of Diane
S. Lichtenstein, Baruch Fischhoff, L. Phillips (1977)
Calibration of Probabilities: The State of the Art
G. Cumming, S. Finch (2005)
Inference by eye: confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data.The American psychologist, 60 2
Thomas Oberlechner (2006)
Psychology of Judgment and Decision-Making
Ilan Yaniv, Dean Foster (1995)
Graininess of judgment under uncertainty: An accuracy-informativeness trade-offJournal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124
Mahesh Patel (1989)
An introduction to meta-analysis.Health policy, 11 1
M. Morgan, David Keith (1995)
Subjective judgments by climate experts.Environmental science & technology, 29 10
(2006)
Subjective confidence and sampling of knowledge. Pp Information Sampling and Adaptive
(1974)
Heuristics and Biases
K. Teigen, M. Jørgensen (2005)
When 90% confidence intervals are 50% certain: on the credibility of credible intervalsApplied Cognitive Psychology, 19
S. Oskamp (1965)
OVERCONFIDENCE IN CASE-STUDY JUDGMENTS.Journal of consulting psychology, 29
R. Kirk (1995)
Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.).
Jack Soll, J. Klayman (2004)
Overconfidence in interval estimates.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 30 2
Barber Barber, Odean Odean (2001)
Boys will be boys: Gender, overconfidence, and common stock investmentQuarterly Journal of Economics, 116
(2005)
Expert Political Judgment
S. Lichtenstein, Baruch Fischhoff (1977)
Do those who know more also know more about how much they know?*1Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
W. Hays (1983)
Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed.Psyccritiques, 28
R. Piola, E. Johnston (2007)
Pollution reduces native diversity and increases invader dominance in marine hard‐substrate communitiesDiversity and Distributions, 14
D. Önkal, G. Muradoglu (1996)
Effects of task format on probabilistic forecasting of stock pricesInternational Journal of Forecasting, 12
Ilan Yaniv, Y. Schul (1997)
Elimination and inclusion procedures in judgment.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10
B. Lewis (1995)
House of Cards: Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on MythAmerican Journal of Psychotherapy, 49
S. Lichtenstein, Baruch Fischhoff, L. Phillips (1982)
Calibration of probabilities: the state of the art to 1980
Claire Tsai, J. Klayman, R. Hastie (2008)
Effects of Amount of Information on Judgment Accuracy and ConfidenceOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107
C. Mckenzie, Michael Liersch, Ilan Yaniv (2008)
Overconfidence in interval estimates: What does expertise buy you?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107
(2007)
The influence of elicitation format, cognitive style, and forecast period on the rates-of-disease predictions of infectious disease experts (Honours Thesis)
G. Shafer, Daniel Kahnerman, P. Slovic, A. Tversky (1984)
Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79
R. Kirk (1970)
Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences
Elicitation of expert opinion is important for risk analysis when only limited data are available. Expert opinion is often elicited in the form of subjective confidence intervals; however, these are prone to substantial overconfidence. We investigated the influence of elicitation question format, in particular the number of steps in the elicitation procedure. In a 3‐point elicitation procedure, an expert is asked for a lower limit, upper limit, and best guess, the two limits creating an interval of some assigned confidence level (e.g., 80%). In our 4‐step interval elicitation procedure, experts were also asked for a realistic lower limit, upper limit, and best guess, but no confidence level was assigned; the fourth step was to rate their anticipated confidence in the interval produced. In our three studies, experts made interval predictions of rates of infectious diseases (Study 1, n = 21 and Study 2, n = 24: epidemiologists and public health experts), or marine invertebrate populations (Study 3, n = 34: ecologists and biologists). We combined the results from our studies using meta‐analysis, which found average overconfidence of 11.9%, 95% CI (3.5, 20.3) (a hit rate of 68.1% for 80% intervals)—a substantial decrease in overconfidence compared with previous studies. Studies 2 and 3 suggest that the 4‐step procedure is more likely to reduce overconfidence than the 3‐point procedure (Cohen's d = 0.61, (0.04, 1.18)).
Risk Analysis – Wiley
Published: Mar 1, 2010
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.