Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Overconfident for real? Proper scoring for confidence intervals

Contents:

Author Info

  • Michał Krawczyk

    ()
    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw)

Abstract

Studies show that people tend to provide overly narrow confidence intervals for unknown values. Such a form of overconfidence would have an important impact on financial markets, among other domains, leading i.a. to excessive trading. The present study is one of the very few that try to incentivize reporting correct confidence intervals. To this end, a reward scheme is proposed, based on a combination of asymmetric loss functions minimized by appropriate quantiles of a probability distribution. In the experiment I find that incentivized subjects provide wider confidence intervals, obtaining a higher hit rate than the control group. The effect is stronger than that of feedback and explicit warning. These findings suggest that the overly narrow confidence intervals reported elsewhere are partly due to an insufficient mental effort that subjects exert and that they can be induced to do so by the proposed incentive scheme.

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.wne.uw.edu.pl/inf/wyd/WP/WNE_WP55.pdf
File Function: First version, 2011
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw in its series Working Papers with number 2011-15.

as in new window
Length: 23 pages
Date of creation: 2011
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:war:wpaper:2011-15

Contact details of provider:
Postal: ul. Dluga 44/50, 00-241 Warszawa
Phone: (+48 22) 55 49 144
Fax: (+48 22) 831 28 46
Email:
Web page: http://www.wne.uw.edu.pl/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: overconfidence; calibration; confidence intervals; proper scoring rules;

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. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
  2. Karl Schlag & Joël van der Weele, 2009. "Efficient interval scoring rules," Economics Working Papers 1176, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
  3. Marie-Pierre Dargnies & Guillaume Hollard, 2008. "Incentives to learn calibration : a gender-dependent impact," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne v08088, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
  4. Ben-David, Itzhak & Graham, John R. & Harvey, Campbell R., 2010. "Managerial Miscalibration," Working Paper Series 2010-12, Ohio State University, Charles A. Dice Center for Research in Financial Economics.
  5. Smith, Vernon L & Walker, James M, 1993. "Monetary Rewards and Decision Cost in Experimental Economics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 31(2), pages 245-61, April.
  6. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
  7. Bruno Biais & Denis Hilton & Karine Mazurier & Sébastien Pouget, 2005. "Judgemental Overconfidence, Self-Monitoring, and Trading Performance in an Experimental Financial Market," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 72(2), pages 287-312.
  8. Murphy, James J. & Stevens, Thomas H., 2004. "Contingent Valuation, Hypothetical Bias, and Experimental Economics," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 33(2), October.
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. Karl Schlag & James Tremewan & Joel van der Weele, 2014. "A Penny for Your Thoughts:A Survey of Methods for Eliciting Beliefs," Vienna Economics Papers 1401, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:war:wpaper:2011-15. 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: (Marcin Bąba).

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.