Are all crowds equally wise? a comparison of political election forecasts by experts and the public
Four groups made forecasts of the outcome of the Swedish Parliamentary election in the fall of 2006. They consisted of members of the public, political scientists, journalists writing about domestic politics in Swedish daily newspapers, and journalists who were editing sections of readers' letters in daily newspapers. They estimated, using a 12-step category scale, which percentage of the votes that they believed seven parties would get in the election. Data were then obtained on the outcome of the election, and on the two opinions polls closest in time to it. When median forecasts were compared across groups, it was found that the group from the public was most successful in forecasting the outcome of the election. This was in spite of the fact that the median error made by individual members of that group was about 50% larger than the median error made by members of other groups. The two polls were less efficient than the group from the public and overestimated the span between the incumbent government and the opposition by a factor of 2. The members of the public and journalists showed some wishful thinking in their forecasts. There were large and consistent individual differences in forecasting ability. Men performed better than women, as did those who expressed more interest and knowledge in politics. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Volume (Year): 28 (2009)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/2966|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jof:jforec:v:28:y:2009:i:1:p:1-18. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)or (Christopher F. Baum)
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.