IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jfr/ijfr11/v3y2012i4p19-32.html

Does Supplementing Outcome Feedback with Performance Feedback Improve Probability Judgments?

Author

Listed:
  • Ning Du
  • Sandra Shelton
  • Ray Whittington

Abstract

This study examines the effect of feedback on calibration of auditors¡¯ probability judgment. Results from our experiment indicate that auditors¡¯ probability judgments are indeed poorly calibrated and auditors are in general overconfident. In addition, we investigate whether we can use feedback as a means to improve judgment quality. Our evidence indicates that outcome feedback, in spite of its simplicity, is effective in reducing overconfidence. Moreover, we find supplementing outcome feedback with performance feedback does not have any added benefits. Sometimes, it actually decreases judgment performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Ning Du & Sandra Shelton & Ray Whittington, 2012. "Does Supplementing Outcome Feedback with Performance Feedback Improve Probability Judgments?," International Journal of Financial Research, International Journal of Financial Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 3(4), pages 19-32, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:jfr:ijfr11:v:3:y:2012:i:4:p:19-32
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciedu.ca/journal/index.php/ijfr/article/view/1849/928
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.sciedu.ca/journal/index.php/ijfr/article/view/1849
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bolger, Fergus & Onkal-Atay, Dilek, 2004. "The effects of feedback on judgmental interval predictions," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 29-39.
    2. Benson, P. George & Onkal, Dilek, 1992. "The effects of feedback and training on the performance of probability forecasters," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 559-573, December.
    3. Kennedy, J & Peecher, ME, 1997. "Judging auditors' technical knowledge," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(2), pages 279-293.
    4. 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.
    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. Parkhurst, Gregory M. & Nowell, Clifford, 2014. "The Role of Confidence in Truthful Revelation of Private Values," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 0, pages 1-16.
    2. Vivek Choudhary & Masha Shunko & Serguei Netessine & Seongjoon Koo, 2022. "Nudging Drivers to Safety: Evidence from a Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(6), pages 4196-4214, June.
    3. Matthew Martin & David R. Mandel, 2025. "Calibration Feedback With the Practical Scoring Rule Does Not Improve Calibration of Confidence," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(1), April.

    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. Lawrence, Michael & Goodwin, Paul & O'Connor, Marcus & Onkal, Dilek, 2006. "Judgmental forecasting: A review of progress over the last 25 years," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 493-518.
    2. Don A. Moore & Samuel A. Swift & Angela Minster & Barbara Mellers & Lyle Ungar & Philip Tetlock & Heather H. J. Yang & Elizabeth R. Tenney, 2017. "Confidence Calibration in a Multiyear Geopolitical Forecasting Competition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(11), pages 3552-3565, November.
    3. Ross Gruetzemacher & Kang Bok Lee & David Paradice, 2024. "Calibration training for improving probabilistic judgments using an interactive app," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(2), June.
    4. Bolger, Fergus & Onkal-Atay, Dilek, 2004. "The effects of feedback on judgmental interval predictions," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 29-39.
    5. Rianne Legerstee & Philip Hans Franses, 2014. "Do Experts’ SKU Forecasts Improve after Feedback?," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(1), pages 69-79, January.
    6. Patrick Krieger & Carsten Lausberg, 2021. "Entscheidungen, Entscheidungsfindung und Entscheidungsunterstützung in der Immobilienwirtschaft: Eine systematische Literaturübersicht [Decisions, decision-making and decisions support systems in real estate: a systematic literature review]," Zeitschrift für Immobilienökonomie (German Journal of Real Estate Research), Springer;Gesellschaft für Immobilienwirtschaftliche Forschung e. V., vol. 7(1), pages 1-33, April.
    7. Ryvkin, Dmitry & Krajč, Marian & Ortmann, Andreas, 2012. "Are the unskilled doomed to remain unaware?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 1012-1031.
    8. Dmytro Babik & Rahul Singh & Xia Zhao & Eric W. Ford, 2017. "What you think and what I think: Studying intersubjectivity in knowledge artifacts evaluation," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 31-56, February.
    9. Eli Amir & Juha-Pekka Kallunki & Henrik Nilsson, 2014. "The association between individual audit partners’ risk preferences and the composition of their client portfolios," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 103-133, March.
    10. Owhoso, Vincent & Weickgenannt, Andrea, 2009. "Auditors’ self-perceived abilities in conducting domain audits," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 3-21.
    11. Thomson, Mary E. & Onkal-Atay, Dilek & Pollock, Andrew C. & Macaulay, Alex, 2003. "The influence of trend strength on directional probabilistic currency predictions," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 241-256.
    12. Alvarado-Valencia, Jorge & Barrero, Lope H. & Önkal, Dilek & Dennerlein, Jack T., 2017. "Expertise, credibility of system forecasts and integration methods in judgmental demand forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 298-313.
    13. Sweeney, John T. & Suh, Ik Seon & Dalton, Kenneth C. & Meljem, Sylvia, 2017. "Are workpaper reviews preparer-specific?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 560-577.
    14. Fellner-Röhling, Gerlinde & Hromek, Kristijan & Kleinknecht, Janina & Ludwig, Sandra, 2023. "How to counteract biased self-assessments? An experimental investigation of reactions to social information," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 1-25.
    15. Song, Haiyan & Gao, Bastian Z. & Lin, Vera S., 2013. "Combining statistical and judgmental forecasts via a web-based tourism demand forecasting system," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 295-310.
    16. Kris Hardies & Diane Breesch & Joël Branson, 2011. "Male and female auditors' overconfidence," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 27(1), pages 105-118, November.
    17. Abolghasemi, Mahdi & Ganbold, Odkhishig & Rotaru, Kristian, 2025. "Humans vs. large language models: Judgmental forecasting in an era of advanced AI," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 631-648.
    18. Hun†Tong Tan & Karim Jamal, 2006. "Managing Perceptions of Technical Competence: How Well Do Auditors Know How Others View Them?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(3), pages 761-787, September.
    19. Camilleri, Adrian R. & Newell, Ben R., 2019. "Better calibration when predicting from experience (rather than description)," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 62-82.
    20. Stav Atir & David Dunning, 2026. "Learning More Than You Can Know: Introductory Education Produces Overly Expansive Self-Assessments of Knowledge," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 72(2), pages 1430-1455, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:jfr:ijfr11:v:3:y:2012:i:4:p:19-32. 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: Gina Perry (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://ijfr.sciedupress.com .

    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.