Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Value of Expertise For Forecasting Decisions in Conflicts

Contents:

Author Info

  • Kesten C. Green
  • J. Scott Armstrong

Abstract

In important conflicts, people typically rely on experts' judgments to predict the decisions that adversaries will make. We compared the accuracy of 106 expert and 169 novice forecasts for eight real conflicts. The forecasts of experts using unaided judgment were little better than those of novices, and neither were much better than simply guessing. The forecasts of experts with more experience were no more accurate than those with less. Speculating that consideration of the relative frequency of decisions might improve accuracy, we obtained 89 forecasts from novices instructed to assume there were 100 similar situations and to ascribe frequencies to decisions. Their forecasts were no more accurate than 96 forecasts from novices asked to pick the most likely decision. We conclude that expert judgment should not be used for predicting decisions that people will make in conflicts. Their use might lead decision makers to overlook other, more useful, approaches.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/ebs/pubs/wpapers/2004/wp27-04.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Monash University, Department of Econometrics and Business Statistics in its series Monash Econometrics and Business Statistics Working Papers with number 27/04.

as in new window
Length: 9 pages
Date of creation: Dec 2004
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:msh:ebswps:2004-27

Contact details of provider:
Postal: PO Box 11E, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia
Phone: +61-3-9905-2489
Fax: +61-3-9905-5474
Email:
Web page: http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/depts/ebs/
More information through EDIRC

Order Information:
Email:
Web: http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/depts/ebs/pubs/wpapers/

Related research

Keywords: Bad faith; Framing; Hindsight bias; Methods; Politics.;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. J. S. Armstrong & R. Brodie & S. McIntyre, 2005. "Forecasting Methods for Marketing:* Review of Empirical Research," General Economics and Teaching 0502023, EconWPA.
  2. Scott Armstrong, J. & Brodie, Roderick J. & McIntyre, Shelby H., 1987. "Forecasting methods for marketing: Review of empirical research," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 3(3-4), pages 355-376.
  3. JS Armstrong, 2004. "The Seer-Sucker Theory: The Value of Experts in Forecasting," General Economics and Teaching 0412009, EconWPA.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Green, Kesten C., 2008. "Assessing probabilistic forecasts about particular situations," MPRA Paper 8836, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  2. Kesten C. Green & J. Scott Armstrong, 2004. "Structured analogies for forecasting," Monash Econometrics and Business Statistics Working Papers 17/04, Monash University, Department of Econometrics and Business Statistics.
  3. Green, Kesten C. & Armstrong, J. Scott & Graefe, Andreas, 2007. "Methods to Elicit Forecasts from Groups: Delphi and Prediction Markets Compared," MPRA Paper 4663, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  4. J. Scott Armstrong & Kesten C. Green, 2005. "Demand Forecasting: Evidence-based Methods," Monash Econometrics and Business Statistics Working Papers 24/05, Monash University, Department of Econometrics and Business Statistics.
  5. Green, Kesten C. & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2011. "Role thinking: Standing in other people's shoes to forecast decisions in conflicts," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 69-80, January.
  6. Green, Kesten C., 2005. "Game theory, simulated interaction, and unaided judgement for forecasting decisions in conflicts: Further evidence," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 463-472.

Lists

This item is featured on the following reading lists or Wikipedia pages:
  1. Technology Assessment

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:msh:ebswps:2004-27. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Simone Grose).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.