IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/wzbmbh/spii2019213.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Comparison of different question formats eliciting point predictions

Author

Listed:
  • Kröger, Sabine
  • Pierrot, Thibaud

Abstract

Survey questions that elicit point predictions regarding uncertain events face an important challenge as human forecasters use various statistics to summarise their subjective expectations. In this paper, we take up the challenge and study whether alternative formulations of the questions used to elicit point predictions can be successful in driving forecasters towards reporting a particular central tendency (median or mean) of their subjective expectations distribution. We set up a laboratory experiment in which the participants act as forecasters and are asked to predict the next realisation of iid random draws coming from an objectively known distribution. We elicit the subjects' point predictions in four treatments, in which we ask for either (1) a "guess" of the next draw, as is standard in survey measures, (2) a "guess" as close as possible to the next 6 draws, and (3) the mean, or (4) the median of the next six draws. We then compare the predictions reported in the different treatments and their proximity to the three main central tendencies (mean, median, mode) of the objectively known distributions. We also investigate the cognitive process that affects the production of point predictions. We find that the majority of predictions in the two guess treatments, (1) and (2), are close to the mode. In treatment (2) ("one guess for the next six draws"), the forecasters report the mean and the median more often in comparison to (1) ("guess for the next draw"), but the mode remains the central tendency around which most of the predictions are located. In treatments (3) and (4), we find that forecasters adjust the point they report in the direction of a particular central tendency when specifically asked to report the mean or the median. Adjustments are more precise for forecasters with higher measures of numeracy and for those who have more experience. However, numeracy has no explanatory power when the forecasters are asked to report a "guess for the next draw" in treatment (1) which suggests that forecasters have different ways to summarise a distribution.

Suggested Citation

  • Kröger, Sabine & Pierrot, Thibaud, 2019. "Comparison of different question formats eliciting point predictions," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Market Behavior SP II 2019-213, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:wzbmbh:spii2019213
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/206534/1/1680857711.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeff Dominitz & Charles F. Manski, 1996. "Eliciting Student Expectations of the Returns to Schooling," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 31(1), pages 1-26.
    2. Charles F. Manski, 2004. "Measuring Expectations," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(5), pages 1329-1376, September.
    3. Adeline Delavande, 2014. "Probabilistic Expectations in Developing Countries," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 1-20, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pamela Giustinelli & Charles F. Manski, 2018. "Survey Measures Of Family Decision Processes For Econometric Analysis Of Schooling Decisions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 81-99, January.
    2. Agarwal, Sandip Kumar, 2017. "Subjective beliefs and decision making under uncertainty in the field," ISU General Staff Papers 201701010800006248, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    3. Agarwal, Sandip & Jacobs, Keri L. & Weninger, Quinn, 2016. "Elicitation of Subjective Beliefs: A Pilot study of farmers' nitrogen management decision-making in Central Iowa," ISU General Staff Papers 201601010800001005, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    4. Ralph Stinebrickner & Todd R. Stinebrickner, 2014. "A Major in Science? Initial Beliefs and Final Outcomes for College Major and Dropout," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 81(1), pages 426-472.
    5. Hugo Benítez-Silva & Debra Dwyer & Wayne-Roy Gayle & Thomas Muench, 2008. "Expectations in micro data: rationality revisited," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 381-416, March.
    6. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Michael F. Bryan & Simon M. Potter & Giorgio Topa & Wilbert Van der Klaauw, 2008. "Rethinking the measurement of household inflation expectations: preliminary findings," Staff Reports 359, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
    7. Lekfuangfu, Warn N., 2022. "Mortality risk, perception, and human capital investments: The legacy of landmines in Cambodia," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    8. Yokoo, Hide-Fumi & Arimura, Toshi H. & Chattopadhyay, Mriduchhanda & Katayama, Hajime, 2023. "Subjective risk belief function in the field: Evidence from cooking fuel choices and health in India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    9. Basit Zafar, 2011. "How Do College Students Form Expectations?," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(2), pages 301-348.
    10. Petra E. Todd & Kenneth I. Wolpin, 2010. "Structural Estimation and Policy Evaluation in Developing Countries," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 21-50, September.
    11. Biroli, Pietro & Boneva, Teodora & Raja, Akash & Rauh, Christopher, 2022. "Parental beliefs about returns to child health investments," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 231(1), pages 33-57.
    12. Kai Barron, 2021. "Belief updating: does the ‘good-news, bad-news’ asymmetry extend to purely financial domains?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 31-58, March.
    13. Fossen, Frank M. & Glocker, Daniela, 2017. "Stated and revealed heterogeneous risk preferences in educational choice," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 1-25.
    14. Shehryar Munir & Farah Said & Umar Taj & Maida Zafar, 2022. "Digital 'nudges' to increase childhood vaccination compliance: Evidence from Pakistan," Papers 2209.06624, arXiv.org.
    15. Koşar, Gizem & Ransom, Tyler & van der Klaauw, Wilbert, 2022. "Understanding migration aversion using elicited counterfactual choice probabilities," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 231(1), pages 123-147.
    16. Kiessling, Lukas, 2021. "How do parents perceive the returns to parenting styles and neighborhoods?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    17. Hanna Freudenreich & Sindu W. Kebede, 2022. "Experience of shocks, household wealth and expectation formation: Evidence from smallholder farmers in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(5), pages 756-774, September.
    18. Arcidiacono, Peter & Hotz, V. Joseph & Kang, Songman, 2012. "Modeling college major choices using elicited measures of expectations and counterfactuals," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 166(1), pages 3-16.
    19. Diaz-Serrano, Luis & Nilsson, William, 2022. "The reliability of students’ earnings expectations," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    20. Orazio Attanasio & Katja Kaufmann, 2009. "Educational Choices, Subjective Expectations, and Credit Constraints," NBER Working Papers 15087, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    subjective expectations; forecasting; eliciting point predictions; experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D84 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Expectations; Speculations

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:wzbmbh:spii2019213. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vawzbde.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.