IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/gra/wpaper/10-01.html

Applying Quadratic Scoring Rule transparently in multiple choice settings: A note

Author

Listed:
  • Florian Artinger

    (Max Planck Institute for Human Development and Technical University Berlin)

  • Filippos Exadaktylos

    (University of Granada)

  • Hannes Koppel

    (Max Planck Institute of Economics)

  • Lauri Sääksvuori

    (Max Planck Institute of Economics)

Abstract

The quadratic scoring rule (QSR) is often used to guarantee an incentive compatible elicitation of subjective probabilities over events. Experimentalists have regularly not been able to ensure that subjects fully comprehend the consequences of their actions on payoffs given the rules of the games. In this note, we present a procedure that allows the transparent use of the QSR even in multiple-choice scenarios. For that purpose, two methodological means are applied: an alternative representation of the score and a short learning period to familiarize subjects with the payoff mechanism. The results suggest that both means were necessary and successful in facilitating subjects’ understanding of the rule.

Suggested Citation

  • Florian Artinger & Filippos Exadaktylos & Hannes Koppel & Lauri Sääksvuori, 2010. "Applying Quadratic Scoring Rule transparently in multiple choice settings: A note," ThE Papers 10/01, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    • Handle: RePEc:gra:wpaper:10/01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ugr.es/~teoriahe/RePEc/gra/wpaper/thepapers10_01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Vera Popva, 2010. "What renders financial advisors less treacherous? - On commissions and reciprocity -," Jena Economics Research Papers 2010-036, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    2. Dimant, Eugen, 2023. "Beyond average: A method for measuring the tightness, looseness, and polarization of social norms," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    3. Bracht, Jürgen & Regner, Tobias, 2013. "Moral emotions and partnership," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 313-326.
    4. Karl Schlag & James Tremewan & Joël Weele, 2015. "A penny for your thoughts: a survey of methods for eliciting beliefs," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 457-490, September.
    5. Luciano Andreozzi & Matteo Ploner & Ali Seyhun Saral, 2019. "The Stability of Conditional Cooperation: Egoism Trumps Reciprocity in Social Dilemmas," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2019_12, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    6. Fairley, Kim & Parelman, Jacob M. & Jones, Matt & Carter, R. McKell, 2019. "Risky health choices and the Balloon Economic Risk Protocol," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 15-33.
    7. Astrid Matthey & Tobias Regner, 2011. "More than outcomes: A cognitive dissonance-based explanation of other-regarding behavior," Jena Economics Research Papers 2011-024, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    8. Eugen Dimant & Michele Gelfand & Anna Hochleitner & Silvia Sonderegger, 2022. "Strategic Behavior with Tight, Loose and Polarized Norms," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 198, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    9. Irving Argaez Corona & Béatrice Boulu-Reshef & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2025. "More Predictable, Less Cooperative: The Effects of Personality Disclosure in Strategic Interaction [Plus prévisible, moins coopératif : les effets de la divulgation des traits de personnalité dans l’interaction stratégique]," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-05393326, HAL.
    10. Schmidt, Robert, 2025. "Social norm uncertainty: Measurement using coordination games and behavioral relevance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 232(C).
    11. Adriana Breaban & Charles N. Noussair & Andreea Victoria Popescu, 2018. "Your money or your time? Experimental evidence on overbidding in all-pay auctions," Working Papers 18-20, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    12. Angelova, Vera & Regner, Tobias, 2013. "Do voluntary payments to advisors improve the quality of financial advice? An experimental deception game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 205-218.
    13. Popescu, Andreea Victoria, 2020. "Essays in asset pricing and auctions," Other publications TiSEM 879f7643-7123-4bc8-a5e7-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Eugen Dimant & Michele Gelfand & Anna Hochleitner & Silvia Sonderegger, 2023. "Strategic Behavior with Tight, Loose and Polarized Norms," CESifo Working Paper Series 10233, CESifo.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D84 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Expectations; Speculations
    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:gra:wpaper:10/01. 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.

    We have no bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Angel Solano Garcia. (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dtugres.html .

    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.