IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v29y1983i2p151-173.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

State of the Art---Encoding Subjective Probabilities: A Psychological and Psychometric Review

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas S. Wallsten

    (University of North Carolina)

  • David V. Budescu

    (University of Haifa, Israel)

Abstract

In order to review the empirical literature on subjective probability encoding from a psychological and psychometric perspective, it is first suggested that the usual encoding techniques can be regarded as instances of the general methods used to scale psychological variables. It is then shown that well-established concepts and theories from measurement and psychometric theory can provide a general framework for evaluating and assessing subjective probability encoding. The actual review of the literature distinguishes between studies conducted with nonexperts and with experts. In the former class, findings related to the reliability, internal consistency, and external validity of the judgments are critically discussed. The latter class reviews work relevant to some of these characteristics separately for several fields of expertise. In die final section of the paper the results from these two classes of studies are summarized and related to a view of vague subjective probabilities. Problems deserving additional attention and research are identified.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas S. Wallsten & David V. Budescu, 1983. "State of the Art---Encoding Subjective Probabilities: A Psychological and Psychometric Review," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 151-173, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:29:y:1983:i:2:p:151-173
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.2.151
    Download Restriction: no

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Fischer, Ilan & Budescu, David V., 2005. "When do those who know more also know more about how much they know? The development of confidence and performance in categorical decision tasks," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 39-53, September.
    2. repec:eee:reensy:v:112:y:2013:i:c:p:109-119 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Lam, K.Y. & Koning, A.J. & Franses, Ph.H.B.F., 2007. "Confidence intervals for maximal reliability of probability judgments," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2007-09, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    4. Saemi Park & David V. Budescu, 2015. "Aggregating multiple probability intervals to improve calibration," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(2), pages 130-143, March.
    5. Wang, Hua & Whittington, Dale, 2005. "Measuring individuals' valuation distributions using a stochastic payment card approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 143-154, November.
    6. Brenner, Lyle & Griffin, Dale & Koehler, Derek J., 2005. "Modeling patterns of probability calibration with random support theory: Diagnosing case-based judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 64-81, May.
    7. Guillaume Hollard & Sébastien Massoni & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2016. "In search of good probability assessors: an experimental comparison of elicitation rules for confidence judgments," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(3), pages 363-387, March.
    8. Mehrez, A. & Yuan, Y. & Gafni, A., 1995. "The search for information -- A patient perspective on multiple opinions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 244-262, September.
    9. Brenner, Lyle A., 2003. "A random support model of the calibration of subjective probabilities," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 87-110, January.
    10. López Martín, M.M. & García García, C.B. & García Pérez, J. & Sánchez Granero, M.A., 2012. "An alternative for robust estimation in Project Management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 220(2), pages 443-451.
    11. Daniel G. Goldstein & David Rothschild, 2014. "Lay understanding of probability distributions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, January.
    12. Wang, W., 1997. "Subjective estimation of the delay time distribution in maintenance modelling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 99(3), pages 516-529, June.
    13. repec:pal:jorsoc:v:60:y:2009:i:4:d:10.1057_palgrave.jors.2602561 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. David Budescu & Yuanchao Bo, 2015. "Analyzing Test-Taking Behavior: Decision Theory Meets Psychometric Theory," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(4), pages 1105-1122, December.
    15. Stone, Eric R. & Opel, Ryan B., 2000. "Training to Improve Calibration and Discrimination: The Effects of Performance and Environmental Feedback," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 282-309, November.
    16. Ozer, Muammer, 2008. "Improving the accuracy of expert predictions of the future success of new internet services," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(3), pages 1085-1099, February.
    17. Matthias Meyer & Cathérine Grisar & Felix Kuhnert, 2011. "The impact of biases on simulation-based risk aggregation: modeling cognitive influences on risk assessment," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 79-105, September.
    18. David V. Budescu & Timothy R. Johnson, 2011. "A model-based approach for the analysis of the calibration of probability judgments," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 857-869, December.
    19. James E. Smith & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2004. "Anniversary Article: Decision Analysis in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(5), pages 561-574, May.
    20. Morera, Osvaldo F. & Budescu, David V., 1998. "A Psychometric Analysis of the "Divide and Conquer" Principle in Multicriteria Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 187-206, September.
    21. Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2011. "An experimental study of the effect of uncertainty representation on decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 214(2), pages 380-392, October.
    22. Ali E. Abbas & David V. Budescu & Yuhong (Rola) Gu, 2010. "Assessing Joint Distributions with Isoprobability Contours," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(6), pages 997-1011, June.
    23. Lau, Hon-Shiang & Somarajan, C., 1995. "A proposal on improved procedures for estimating task-time distributions in PERT," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 39-52, August.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:29:y:1983:i:2:p:151-173. 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: (Mirko Janc). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.