IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v100y2019i3p965-974.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predicting Known Terrorist Event Outcomes and the Illusion of Self‐Assessed Expertise

Author

Listed:
  • James L. Regens
  • Nick Mould
  • Clay Foster

Abstract

Objective This study focuses on the influence of self‐assessed expertise on forecasting accuracy for incomplete information. We investigate this ability in individuals using a series of indicators of terrorist behaviors. Method An instrument containing incomplete data on terrorist attacks was provided to participants. Participants were instructed to predict missing values. The accuracy of approximately 1,900 forecasts was determined. The influence of self‐identified statistical ability, terrorism familiarity, and an empirical measure of pattern recognition ability on accuracy was investigated. Results The results of the experiment indicate that neither self‐assessed statistical ability nor terrorism familiarity have a significant influence on forecast accuracy. Interestingly, the empirical estimate of pattern recognition ability also had no appreciable effect on accuracy. Conclusion This study indicates that statistical ability and terrorism familiarity have little effect on forecast accuracy. Innate pattern recognition ability also showed no significant relationship with accuracy. These findings suggest that self‐identified expertise should initially be viewed with some level of skepticism.

Suggested Citation

  • James L. Regens & Nick Mould & Clay Foster, 2019. "Predicting Known Terrorist Event Outcomes and the Illusion of Self‐Assessed Expertise," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 100(3), pages 965-974, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:100:y:2019:i:3:p:965-974
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12601
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12601
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.12601?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:100:y:2019:i:3:p:965-974. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.