Loading…
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...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Journal of experimental psychology. Applied 2000-06, Vol.6 (2), p.130-147 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Citations: | Items that cite this one |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a400t-dd356ab27fa901a6a1ae6fa3e2999925521d99f5f3a01923d4b871bc4af9a663 |
|---|---|
| cites | |
| container_end_page | 147 |
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 130 |
| container_title | Journal of experimental psychology. Applied |
| container_volume | 6 |
| creator | Ariely, Dan Au, Wing Tung Bender, Randall H Budescu, David V Dietz, Christiane B Gu, Hongbin Wallsten, Thomas S Zauberman, Gal |
| description | 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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1037/1076-898X.6.2.130 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71734163</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>614341025</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a400t-dd356ab27fa901a6a1ae6fa3e2999925521d99f5f3a01923d4b871bc4af9a663</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkE1v1DAQhi1ERUvhB3BBFkjcsnjsxFkf22r5UqUidSW4WZNkvPUqmwTbKey_r1dbEKovY3meeeV5GHsDYgFC1R9B1LpYmuXPhV7IBSjxjJ2BUaaQYOTzfP_bP2UvY9wKIZbGlC_YKQijagX1Gbtd3xFfOUdtinx0_OKeAm78sOG3c7PNr_6e-PcwNtj43qc9X8Xkd5go8ktKv4kGjkPHf_h05wf-be42FF-xE4d9pNeP9ZytP63WV1-K65vPX68urgsshUhF16lKYyNrh0YAagQk7VCRNPnIqpLQGeMqp1DkfVRXNssamrZEZ1Brdc4-HGOnMP6aKSa787GlvseBxjnaGmpVglYZfPcE3I5zGPLXrIYyM0JWGYIj1IYxxkDOTiEvGvYWhD3Ytgeb9mDTaitttp1n3j4Gz82Ouv8mjnoz8P4I4IR2ivsWQ_JtT9H-welfzAM9_oZL</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>614341025</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Effects of Averaging Subjective Probability Estimates Between and Within Judges</title><source>EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES</source><creator>Ariely, Dan ; Au, Wing Tung ; Bender, Randall H ; Budescu, David V ; Dietz, Christiane B ; Gu, Hongbin ; Wallsten, Thomas S ; Zauberman, Gal</creator><creatorcontrib>Ariely, Dan ; Au, Wing Tung ; Bender, Randall H ; Budescu, David V ; Dietz, Christiane B ; Gu, Hongbin ; Wallsten, Thomas S ; Zauberman, Gal</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1076-898X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-2192</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/1076-898X.6.2.130</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10937317</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Psychological Association</publisher><subject>Adult ; Decision Making ; Estimation ; Human ; Humans ; Judgment ; Motivation ; Probability Judgment ; Probability Learning ; Statistical Analysis</subject><ispartof>Journal of experimental psychology. Applied, 2000-06, Vol.6 (2), p.130-147</ispartof><rights>2000 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>2000, American Psychological Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a400t-dd356ab27fa901a6a1ae6fa3e2999925521d99f5f3a01923d4b871bc4af9a663</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10937317$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ariely, Dan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Au, Wing Tung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bender, Randall H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Budescu, David V</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dietz, Christiane B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gu, Hongbin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wallsten, Thomas S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zauberman, Gal</creatorcontrib><title>The Effects of Averaging Subjective Probability Estimates Between and Within Judges</title><title>Journal of experimental psychology. Applied</title><addtitle>J Exp Psychol Appl</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Estimation</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Judgment</subject><subject>Motivation</subject><subject>Probability Judgment</subject><subject>Probability Learning</subject><subject>Statistical Analysis</subject><issn>1076-898X</issn><issn>1939-2192</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpdkE1v1DAQhi1ERUvhB3BBFkjcsnjsxFkf22r5UqUidSW4WZNkvPUqmwTbKey_r1dbEKovY3meeeV5GHsDYgFC1R9B1LpYmuXPhV7IBSjxjJ2BUaaQYOTzfP_bP2UvY9wKIZbGlC_YKQijagX1Gbtd3xFfOUdtinx0_OKeAm78sOG3c7PNr_6e-PcwNtj43qc9X8Xkd5go8ktKv4kGjkPHf_h05wf-be42FF-xE4d9pNeP9ZytP63WV1-K65vPX68urgsshUhF16lKYyNrh0YAagQk7VCRNPnIqpLQGeMqp1DkfVRXNssamrZEZ1Brdc4-HGOnMP6aKSa787GlvseBxjnaGmpVglYZfPcE3I5zGPLXrIYyM0JWGYIj1IYxxkDOTiEvGvYWhD3Ytgeb9mDTaitttp1n3j4Gz82Ouv8mjnoz8P4I4IR2ivsWQ_JtT9H-welfzAM9_oZL</recordid><startdate>20000601</startdate><enddate>20000601</enddate><creator>Ariely, Dan</creator><creator>Au, Wing Tung</creator><creator>Bender, Randall H</creator><creator>Budescu, David V</creator><creator>Dietz, Christiane B</creator><creator>Gu, Hongbin</creator><creator>Wallsten, Thomas S</creator><creator>Zauberman, Gal</creator><general>American Psychological Association</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20000601</creationdate><title>The Effects of Averaging Subjective Probability Estimates Between and Within Judges</title><author>Ariely, Dan ; Au, Wing Tung ; Bender, Randall H ; Budescu, David V ; Dietz, Christiane B ; Gu, Hongbin ; Wallsten, Thomas S ; Zauberman, Gal</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a400t-dd356ab27fa901a6a1ae6fa3e2999925521d99f5f3a01923d4b871bc4af9a663</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Estimation</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Judgment</topic><topic>Motivation</topic><topic>Probability Judgment</topic><topic>Probability Learning</topic><topic>Statistical Analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ariely, Dan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Au, Wing Tung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bender, Randall H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Budescu, David V</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dietz, Christiane B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gu, Hongbin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wallsten, Thomas S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zauberman, Gal</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>APA PsycArticles®</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of experimental psychology. Applied</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ariely, Dan</au><au>Au, Wing Tung</au><au>Bender, Randall H</au><au>Budescu, David V</au><au>Dietz, Christiane B</au><au>Gu, Hongbin</au><au>Wallsten, Thomas S</au><au>Zauberman, Gal</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Effects of Averaging Subjective Probability Estimates Between and Within Judges</atitle><jtitle>Journal of experimental psychology. Applied</jtitle><addtitle>J Exp Psychol Appl</addtitle><date>2000-06-01</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>130</spage><epage>147</epage><pages>130-147</pages><issn>1076-898X</issn><eissn>1939-2192</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Psychological Association</pub><pmid>10937317</pmid><doi>10.1037/1076-898X.6.2.130</doi><tpages>18</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1076-898X |
| ispartof | Journal of experimental psychology. Applied, 2000-06, Vol.6 (2), p.130-147 |
| issn | 1076-898X 1939-2192 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71734163 |
| source | EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES |
| subjects | Adult Decision Making Estimation Human Humans Judgment Motivation Probability Judgment Probability Learning Statistical Analysis |
| title | The Effects of Averaging Subjective Probability Estimates Between and Within Judges |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T12%3A20%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Effects%20of%20Averaging%20Subjective%20Probability%20Estimates%20Between%20and%20Within%20Judges&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20experimental%20psychology.%20Applied&rft.au=Ariely,%20Dan&rft.date=2000-06-01&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=130&rft.epage=147&rft.pages=130-147&rft.issn=1076-898X&rft.eissn=1939-2192&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/1076-898X.6.2.130&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E614341025%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a400t-dd356ab27fa901a6a1ae6fa3e2999925521d99f5f3a01923d4b871bc4af9a663%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=614341025&rft_id=info:pmid/10937317&rfr_iscdi=true |