IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intfor/v27yi1p183-195.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing face-to-face meetings, nominal groups, Delphi and prediction markets on an estimation task

Author

Listed:
  • Graefe, Andreas
  • Armstrong, J. Scott

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Graefe, Andreas & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2011. "Comparing face-to-face meetings, nominal groups, Delphi and prediction markets on an estimation task," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 183-195, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:intfor:v:27:y::i:1:p:183-195
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169-2070(10)00088-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David M. Boje & J. Keith Murnighan, 1982. "Group Confidence Pressures in Iterative Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(10), pages 1187-1196, October.
    2. repec:reg:rpubli:259 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Justin Wolfers & Eric Zitzewitz, 2004. "Prediction Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 18(2), pages 107-126, Spring.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. von der Gracht, Heiko A. & Hommel, Ulrich & Prokesch, Tobias & Wohlenberg, Holger, 2016. "Testing weighting approaches for forecasting in a Group Wisdom Support System environment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 4081-4094.
    2. Winkler, Jens & Kuklinski, Christian Paul Jian-Wei & Moser, Roger, 2015. "Decision making in emerging markets: The Delphi approach's contribution to coping with uncertainty and equivocality," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1118-1126.
    3. repec:eee:intfor:v:27:y:2011:i:1:p:1-13 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Armstrong, J. Scott & Green, Kesten C. & Graefe, Andreas, 2015. "Golden rule of forecasting: Be conservative," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1717-1731.
    5. Goodwin, Paul & Meeran, Sheik & Dyussekeneva, Karima, 2014. "The challenges of pre-launch forecasting of adoption time series for new durable products," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 1082-1097.
    6. Wright, George & Rowe, Gene, 2011. "Group-based judgmental forecasting: An integration of extant knowledge and the development of priorities for a new research agenda," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 1-13, January.
    7. Kauko, Karlo & Palmroos, Peter, 2014. "The Delphi method in forecasting financial markets— An experimental study," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 313-327.
    8. Hanea, A.M. & McBride, M.F. & Burgman, M.A. & Wintle, B.C. & Fidler, F. & Flander, L. & Twardy, C.R. & Manning, B. & Mascaro, S., 2017. "I nvestigate D iscuss E stimate A ggregate for structured expert judgement," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 267-279.
    9. Cary Deck & David Porter, 2013. "Prediction Markets In The Laboratory," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 589-603, July.
    10. Marcin Kozak & Olesia Iefremova, 2014. "Implementation Of The Delphi Technique In Finance," "e-Finanse", University of Information Technology and Management, Institute of Financial Research and Analysis, vol. 10(4), pages 36-45, May.
    11. Keller, Jonas & von der Gracht, Heiko A., 2014. "The influence of information and communication technology (ICT) on future foresight processes — Results from a Delphi survey," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 81-92.
    12. Nikolopoulos, Konstantinos & Litsa, Akrivi & Petropoulos, Fotios & Bougioukos, Vasileios & Khammash, Marwan, 2015. "Relative performance of methods for forecasting special events," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1785-1791.
    13. Griffiths, Frances & Cave, Jonathan & Boardman, Felicity & Ren, Justin & Pawlikowska, Teresa & Ball, Robin & Clarke, Aileen & Cohen, Alan, 2012. "Social networks – The future for health care delivery," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2233-2241.
    14. repec:oup:restud:v:82:y:2015:i:4:p:1309-1341. is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Spickermann, Alexander & Zimmermann, Martin & von der Gracht, Heiko A., 2014. "Surface- and deep-level diversity in panel selection — Exploring diversity effects on response behaviour in foresight," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 105-120.
    16. Eksoz, Can & Mansouri, S. Afshin & Bourlakis, Michael, 2014. "Collaborative forecasting in the food supply chain: A conceptual framework," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 120-135.
    17. Winkler, Jens & Moser, Roger, 2016. "Biases in future-oriented Delphi studies: A cognitive perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 63-76.
    18. Lian Jian & Rahul Sami, 2012. "Aggregation and Manipulation in Prediction Markets: Effects of Trading Mechanism and Information Distribution," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 123-140, January.
    19. Tommaso Ciarli & Alex Coad & Ismael Rafols, 2015. "Quantitative Analysis of Technology Futures: A review of Techniques, Uses and Characteristics," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-23, SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex.

    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:eee:intfor:v:27:y::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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijforecast .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.