IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/wzbmbh/spii2019213.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Comparison of different question formats eliciting point predictions

Author

Listed:
  • Kröger, Sabine
  • Pierrot, Thibaud

Abstract

Survey questions that elicit point predictions regarding uncertain events face an important challenge as human forecasters use various statistics to summarise their subjective expectations. In this paper, we take up the challenge and study whether alternative formulations of the questions used to elicit point predictions can be successful in driving forecasters towards reporting a particular central tendency (median or mean) of their subjective expectations distribution. We set up a laboratory experiment in which the participants act as forecasters and are asked to predict the next realisation of iid random draws coming from an objectively known distribution. We elicit the subjects' point predictions in four treatments, in which we ask for either (1) a "guess" of the next draw, as is standard in survey measures, (2) a "guess" as close as possible to the next 6 draws, and (3) the mean, or (4) the median of the next six draws. We then compare the predictions reported in the different treatments and their proximity to the three main central tendencies (mean, median, mode) of the objectively known distributions. We also investigate the cognitive process that affects the production of point predictions. We find that the majority of predictions in the two guess treatments, (1) and (2), are close to the mode. In treatment (2) ("one guess for the next six draws"), the forecasters report the mean and the median more often in comparison to (1) ("guess for the next draw"), but the mode remains the central tendency around which most of the predictions are located. In treatments (3) and (4), we find that forecasters adjust the point they report in the direction of a particular central tendency when specifically asked to report the mean or the median. Adjustments are more precise for forecasters with higher measures of numeracy and for those who have more experience. However, numeracy has no explanatory power when the forecasters are asked to report a "guess for the next draw" in treatment (1) which suggests that forecasters have different ways to summarise a distribution.

Suggested Citation

  • Kröger, Sabine & Pierrot, Thibaud, 2019. "Comparison of different question formats eliciting point predictions," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Market Behavior SP II 2019-213, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:wzbmbh:spii2019213
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/206534/1/1680857711.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeff Dominitz & Charles F. Manski, 1996. "Eliciting Student Expectations of the Returns to Schooling," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 31(1), pages 1-26.
    2. Charles F. Manski, 2004. "Measuring Expectations," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(5), pages 1329-1376, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    subjective expectations; forecasting; eliciting point predictions; experiment;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D84 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Expectations; Speculations

    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:zbw:wzbmbh:spii2019213. 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: (ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/vawzbde.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.

    If CitEc recognized a 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.

    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.