Comparing face-to-face meetings, nominal groups, Delphi and prediction markets on an estimation task
We conducted laboratory experiments for analyzing the accuracy of three structured approaches (nominal groups, Delphi, and prediction markets) relative to traditional face-to-face meetings (FTF). We recruited 227 participants (11 groups per method) who were required to solve a quantitative judgment task that did not involve distributed knowledge. This task consisted of ten factual questions, which required percentage estimates. While we did not find statistically significant differences in accuracy between the four methods overall, the results differed somewhat at the individual question level. Delphi was as accurate as FTF for eight questions and outperformed FTF for two questions. By comparison, prediction markets did not outperform FTF for any of the questions and were inferior for three questions. The relative performances of nominal groups and FTF were mixed and the differences were small. We also compared the results from the three structured approaches to prior individual estimates and staticized groups. The three structured approaches were more accurate than participants’ prior individual estimates. Delphi was also more accurate than staticized groups. Nominal groups and prediction markets provided little additional value relative to a simple average of the forecasts. In addition, we examined participants’ perceptions of the group and the group process. The participants rated personal communications more favorably than computer-mediated interactions. The group interactions in FTF and nominal groups were perceived as being highly cooperative and effective. Prediction markets were rated least favourably: prediction market participants were least satisfied with the group process and perceived their method as the most difficult.
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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
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.:
- Wolfers, Justin & Zitzewitz, Eric, 2004.
1854, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
- repec:reg:rpubli:259 is not listed on IDEAS
- Berg, Joyce E. & Nelson, Forrest D. & Rietz, Thomas A., 2008. "Prediction market accuracy in the long run," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 285-300.
- Jed D. Christiansen, 2007. "Prediction Markets: Practical Experiments in Small Markets and Behaviours Observed," Journal of Prediction Markets, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 1(1), pages 17-41, February.
- Rowe, Gene & Wright, George, 1999. "The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 353-375, October.
- David M. Boje & J. Keith Murnighan, 1982. "Group Confidence Pressures in Iterative Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(10), pages 1187-1196, October.
- Kesten Green & J. Scott Armstrong & Andreas Graefe, 2007.
"Methods to Elicit Forecasts from Groups: Delphi and Prediction Markets Compared,"
Foresight: The International Journal of Applied Forecasting,
International Institute of Forecasters, issue 8, pages 17-20, Fall.
- 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.
- Paul W. Rhode & Koleman S. Strumpf, 2004. "Historical Presidential Betting Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 18(2), pages 127-141, Spring.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:intfor:v:27:y:2011:i:1:p:183-195. 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: (Zhang, Lei)
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.