The Effects of Averaging Subjective Probability Estimates Between and Within Judges

The average probability estimate of J > 1 judges is generally better than its components. Two studies test 3 predictions regarding averaging that follow from theorems based on a cognitive model of the judges and idealizations of the judgment situation. Prediction 1 is that the average of conditio...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of experimental psychology. Applied 2000-06, Vol.6 (2), p.130-147
Main Authors: Ariely, Dan, Au, Wing Tung, Bender, Randall H, Budescu, David V, Dietz, Christiane B, Gu, Hongbin, Wallsten, Thomas S, Zauberman, Gal
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Decision Making
Estimation
Human
Humans
Judgment
Motivation
Probability Judgment
Probability Learning
Statistical Analysis
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The average probability estimate of J > 1 judges is generally better than its components. Two studies test 3 predictions regarding averaging that follow from theorems based on a cognitive model of the judges and idealizations of the judgment situation. Prediction 1 is that the average of conditionally pairwise independent estimates will be highly diagnostic, and Prediction 2 is that the average of dependent estimates (differing only by independent error terms) may be well calibrated. Prediction 3 contrasts between- and within-subject averaging. Results demonstrate the predictions' robustness by showing the extent to which they hold as the information conditions depart from the ideal and as J increases. Practical consequences are that (a) substantial improvement can be obtained with as few as 2-6 judges and (b) the decision maker can estimate the nature of the expected improvement by considering the information conditions.
ISSN:1076-898X
1939-2192
DOI:10.1037/1076-898X.6.2.130