Combining Probability Forecasts: 60% and 60% Is 60%, but Likely and Likely is Very Likely

Robert Mislavsky, Celia Gaertig
{"title":"Combining Probability Forecasts: 60% and 60% Is 60%, but Likely and Likely is Very Likely","authors":"Robert Mislavsky, Celia Gaertig","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3454796","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How do we combine others’ probability forecasts? Prior research has shown that when advisors provide numeric probability forecasts, people typically average them (i.e., they move closer to the average advisor’s forecast). However, what if the advisors say that an event is “likely” or “probable?” In eight studies (n = 7,334), we find that people are more likely to act as if they “count” verbal probabilities (i.e., they move closer to certainty than any individual advisor’s forecast) than they are to “count” numeric probabilities. For example, when the advisors both say an event is “likely,” participants will say that it is “very likely.” This effect occurs for both probabilities above and below 50%, for hypothetical scenarios and real events, and when presenting the others’ forecasts simultaneously or sequentially. We also show that this combination strategy carries over to subsequent consumer decisions that rely on advisors’ likelihood judgments. We discuss and rule out several candidate mechanisms for our effect. This paper was accepted by Yuval Rottenstreich, decision analysis.","PeriodicalId":150866,"journal":{"name":"IRPN: Innovation Strategy (Topic)","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IRPN: Innovation Strategy (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3454796","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

How do we combine others’ probability forecasts? Prior research has shown that when advisors provide numeric probability forecasts, people typically average them (i.e., they move closer to the average advisor’s forecast). However, what if the advisors say that an event is “likely” or “probable?” In eight studies (n = 7,334), we find that people are more likely to act as if they “count” verbal probabilities (i.e., they move closer to certainty than any individual advisor’s forecast) than they are to “count” numeric probabilities. For example, when the advisors both say an event is “likely,” participants will say that it is “very likely.” This effect occurs for both probabilities above and below 50%, for hypothetical scenarios and real events, and when presenting the others’ forecasts simultaneously or sequentially. We also show that this combination strategy carries over to subsequent consumer decisions that rely on advisors’ likelihood judgments. We discuss and rule out several candidate mechanisms for our effect. This paper was accepted by Yuval Rottenstreich, decision analysis.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
结合概率预测:60%和60%是60%,但可能和可能是非常可能
我们如何结合别人的概率预测?先前的研究表明,当顾问提供数字概率预测时,人们通常会平均它们(即,他们更接近顾问的平均预测)。然而,如果顾问说一个事件是“可能的”或“可能的”呢?在8项研究(n = 7334)中,我们发现人们更倾向于“计算”口头概率(即,他们比任何个人顾问的预测更接近确定性),而不是“计算”数字概率。例如,当顾问都说一个事件是“可能的”,参与者会说它是“非常可能的”。这种效应发生在概率高于或低于50%的情况下,发生在假设情景和真实事件中,以及同时或依次呈现他人的预测时。我们还表明,这种组合策略延续到依赖于顾问可能性判断的后续消费者决策。我们讨论并排除了几个候选机制的影响。这篇论文被Yuval Rottenstreich接受,决策分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Blockchain-Based Big Data Integrity Service Framework for IoT Devices Data Processing in Smart Cities Combining Probability Forecasts: 60% and 60% Is 60%, but Likely and Likely is Very Likely Application of Facebook's Prophet Algorithm for Successful Sales Forecasting Based on Real-world Data A Study on Consent of the GDPR in Advertising Technology Focusing on Programmatic Buying Smart Specialization Strategies at National, Regional, or Local Levels? Synergy and Policy-making in German Systems of Innovation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1