Articlegold2011

Repeated judgment sampling: Boundaries

21 citations0/0 files storedJudgment and Decision Making

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics Forecasting Techniques and Applications Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Abstract

Abstract This paper investigates the boundaries of the recent result that eliciting more than one estimate from the same person and averaging these can lead to accuracy gains in judgment tasks. It first examines its generality, analysing whether the kind of question being asked has an effect on the size of potential gains. Experimental results show that the question type matters. Previous results reporting potential accuracy gains are reproduced for year-estimation questions, and extended to questions about percentage shares. On the other hand, no gains are found for general numerical questions. The second part of the paper tests repeated judgment sampling’s practical applicability by asking judges to provide a third and final answer on the basis of their first two estimates. In an experiment, the majority of judges do not consistently average their first two answers. As a result, they do not realise the potential accuracy gains from averaging.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 21 citations exist upstream.

References

1956Perception and the Representative Design of Psychological Experiments 2004The wisdom of crowds: why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies and nations 2001Principles of Forecasting 2001Principles of forecasting : a handbook for researchers and practitioners 1991Categories and particulars: Prototype effects in estimating spatial location.2000Advice Taking in Decision Making: Egocentric Discounting and Reputation Formation 2009Strategies for revising judgment: How (and how well) people use others’ opinions.2004The Role of Representative Design in an Ecological Approach to Cognition.

Cited by

2017The wisdom of the inner crowd in three large natural experiments 2022Taking a Disagreeing Perspective Improves the Accuracy of People’s Quantitative Estimates 2020Effect of confidence interval construction on judgment accuracy 2020Effect of Confidence Interval Construction on Judgment Accuracy 2019Taking a disagreeing perspective improves the accuracy of people's quantitative estimates

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.