Coherence and Consistency of Investors' Probability Judgments
This study investigates the quality of direct probability judgments and quantile estimates with a focus on calibration and consistency. The two response modes use different measures of miscalibration, so it is difficult to directly compare their relative (in)accuracy. We employed a more refined within-subject design in which decision makers (DMs) used both response modes to make judgments about a random sample of stocks accompanied by identical information to facilitate comparison between the two judgment methods. DMs judged the probabilities that the stocks will reach a certain threshold, provided lower and upper bounds of these forecasts, and estimated median, 50%, 70%, and 90% confidence intervals of their future prices. We found that the judgments were internally consistent and coherent, but in most cases they were slightly miscalibrated. We used several new methods of analysis that allow for more precise and reliable comparison between the two response modes. We inferred point probability estimates for the target events from the confidence intervals and analyzed them by the same methods applied to binary judgments. Interestingly, when we quantified miscalibration in identical fashion for both methods we did not find evidence of differential levels of miscalibration for the probability judgments and the confidence intervals. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these results.
Volume (Year): 53 (2007)
Issue (Month): 11 (November)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.informs.org/Email:
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:53:y:2007:i:11:p:1731-1744. 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)
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.