Skip to main content
×
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 114
  • Cited by
    This chapter has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Invernizzi, Anna Chiara 2018. Overconfidence in SMEs. p. 21.

    Zaremba, Adam and Shemer, Jacob “Koby” 2018. Price-Based Investment Strategies. p. 125.

    Wright, M. Keith Bose, Utpal Hashemi, Shohreh and Pence, Diana 2018. Exploration of Academic Risk Taking Among College Students. International Journal of Business Analytics, Vol. 5, Issue. 2, p. 17.

    Gaba, Anil Popescu, Dana G. and Chen, Zhi 2018. Assessing Uncertainty from Point Forecasts. Management Science,

    Du, Ning and Budescu, David V. 2018. How (Over) Confident Are Financial Analysts?. Journal of Behavioral Finance, Vol. 19, Issue. 3, p. 308.

    Tech, Robin P. G. 2018. Financing High-Tech Startups. p. 29.

    Zhu, Zhaohui and Huang, Wensheng 2017. Bounded Rationality, Stock Mispricing, and Corporate Investment. Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 21, Issue. 6, p. 1056.

    Pu, Xujin Jin, Delong and Han, Guanghua 2017. Effect of Overconfidence on Cournot Competition in the Presence of Yield Uncertainty. Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol. 38, Issue. 3, p. 382.

    Schall, Dominik L. Doll, Dominik and Mohnen, Alwine 2017. Caution! Warnings as a Useless Countermeasure to Reduce Overconfidence? An Experimental Evaluation in Light of Enhanced and Dynamic Warning Designs. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 30, Issue. 2, p. 347.

    Walters, Daniel J. Fernbach, Philip M. Fox, Craig R. and Sloman, Steven A. 2017. Known Unknowns: A Critical Determinant of Confidence and Calibration. Management Science, Vol. 63, Issue. 12, p. 4298.

    Anbarci, Nejat Lee, Jungmin and Ulker, Aydogan 2016. Win at All Costs or Lose Gracefully in High-Stakes Competition? Gender Differences in Professional Tennis. Journal of Sports Economics, Vol. 17, Issue. 4, p. 323.

    Just, David R. and Just, Richard E. 2016. Empirical Identification of Behavioral Choice Models under Risk. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 98, Issue. 4, p. 1181.

    Ferretti, Valentina Guney, Sule Montibeller, Gilberto and Winterfeldt, Detlof von 2016. Testing Best Practices to Reduce the Overconfidence Bias in Multi-criteria Decision Analysis. p. 1547.

    Keeney, Ralph L. 2016. Remembering Howard Raiffa. Decision Analysis, Vol. 13, Issue. 3, p. 213.

    Whitlock, Rebecca E. Kopra, Juho Pakarinen, Tapani Jutila, Eero Leach, Adrian W. Levontin, Polina Kuikka, Sakari and Romakkaniemi, Atso 2016. Mark-recapture estimation of mortality and migration rates for sea trout (Salmo trutta) in the northern Baltic sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil, p. fsw152.

    Wolfson, Lara J. and Bousquet, Nicolas 2016. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online. p. 1.

    Almandoz, Juan and Tilcsik, András 2016. When Experts Become Liabilities: Domain Experts on Boards and Organizational Failure. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 59, Issue. 4, p. 1124.

    BAO, HELEN X. H. and LI, STEVEN HAOTONG 2016. OVERCONFIDENCE AND REAL ESTATE RESEARCH: A SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE. The Singapore Economic Review, Vol. 61, Issue. 04, p. 1650015.

    Montibeller, Gilberto and Winterfeldt, Detlof von 2015. Biases and Debiasing in Multi-criteria Decision Analysis. p. 1218.

    Montibeller, Gilberto and von Winterfeldt, Detlof 2015. Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis. Risk Analysis, Vol. 35, Issue. 7, p. 1230.

    ×
  • Print publication year: 1982
  • Online publication date: May 2013

21 - A progress report on the training of probability assessors

Summary

In prescriptive analyses of decisions under uncertainty, decision makers and their expert advisors are often called upon to assess judgmental probability distributions of quantities whose values are unknown to them. This chapter discusses some empirical findings addressed to such questions as: How well can untrained individuals perform such assessments? Do they manifest certain recurrent biases? How can assessors be calibrated? How can they be taught to become better assessors?

This chapter deals only with assessments of uncertain quantities that can be thought of as taking on a continuum of possible values. Hence we shall work exclusively with univariate density functions and their cumulative distribution functions. Several different procedures are available for assessing probability distributions of continuous, univariate random variables, but we shall consider only one particular procedure that we and our colleagues have often used in practice. It is called the method of direct fractile assessments.

Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

Judgment under Uncertainty
  • Online ISBN: 9780511809477
  • Book DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809477
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *
×