IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intfor/v35y2019i1p351-370.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incentive compatibility in prediction markets: Costly actions and external incentives

Author

Listed:
  • Di, Chen
  • Dimitrov, Stanko
  • He, Qi-Ming

Abstract

We consider a multi-round prediction market in which two agents, Alice and Bob, are trading on an event on which each may take action to influence its outcome. The existing literature assumes that there is no net difference between the costs of different actions the agents may take outside the prediction market when external incentives exist. For example, the cost for Alice to work hard to complete the project is the same as it is for her to “loaf” and not work hard. In this work we consider first a two-round and later a four-round setting in which the agents’ costs of external actions differ between actions. We show that a prediction market is incentive-compatible when external action costs differ as long as they remain within a proper range, regardless of the initial market estimate, something that is not shown in the existing literature.

Suggested Citation

  • Di, Chen & Dimitrov, Stanko & He, Qi-Ming, 2019. "Incentive compatibility in prediction markets: Costly actions and external incentives," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 351-370.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:intfor:v:35:y:2019:i:1:p:351-370
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2018.07.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169207018301109
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2018.07.005?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edgar C. Merkle & Mark Steyvers, 2013. "Choosing a Strictly Proper Scoring Rule," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 292-304, December.
    2. Rothschild, David, 2015. "Combining forecasts for elections: Accurate, relevant, and timely," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 952-964.
    3. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    4. Marco Ottaviani & Peter Norman Sørensen, 2007. "Outcome Manipulation in Corporate Prediction Markets," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 5(2-3), pages 554-563, 04-05.
    5. Peeters, Thomas, 2018. "Testing the Wisdom of Crowds in the field: Transfermarkt valuations and international soccer results," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 17-29.
    6. Weber, Bethany J. & Chapman, Gretchen B., 2005. "Playing for peanuts: Why is risk seeking more common for low-stakes gambles?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 31-46, May.
    7. Majid Karimi & Stanko Dimitrov, 2018. "On the Road to Making Science of “Art”: Risk Bias in Market Scoring Rules," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 72-89, June.
    8. repec:reg:rpubli:460 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Gneiting, Tilmann & Raftery, Adrian E., 2007. "Strictly Proper Scoring Rules, Prediction, and Estimation," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 102, pages 359-378, March.
    10. Hanea, A.M. & McBride, M.F. & Burgman, M.A. & Wintle, B.C. & Fidler, F. & Flander, L. & Twardy, C.R. & Manning, B. & Mascaro, S., 2017. "I nvestigate D iscuss E stimate A ggregate for structured expert judgement," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 267-279.
    11. J. Eric Bickel, 2007. "Some Comparisons among Quadratic, Spherical, and Logarithmic Scoring Rules," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 4(2), pages 49-65, June.
    12. Graefe, Andreas & Armstrong, J. Scott & Jones, Randall J. & Cuzán, Alfred G., 2014. "Combining forecasts: An application to elections," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 43-54.
    13. repec:bla:econom:v:72:y:2005:i:3:p:375-396 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Petropoulos, Fotios & Apiletti, Daniele & Assimakopoulos, Vassilios & Babai, Mohamed Zied & Barrow, Devon K. & Ben Taieb, Souhaib & Bergmeir, Christoph & Bessa, Ricardo J. & Bijak, Jakub & Boylan, Joh, 2022. "Forecasting: theory and practice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 705-871.
      • Fotios Petropoulos & Daniele Apiletti & Vassilios Assimakopoulos & Mohamed Zied Babai & Devon K. Barrow & Souhaib Ben Taieb & Christoph Bergmeir & Ricardo J. Bessa & Jakub Bijak & John E. Boylan & Jet, 2020. "Forecasting: theory and practice," Papers 2012.03854, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    2. Armantier, Olivier & Treich, Nicolas, 2013. "Eliciting beliefs: Proper scoring rules, incentives, stakes and hedging," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 17-40.
    3. Brown, Alasdair & Reade, J. James & Vaughan Williams, Leighton, 2019. "When are prediction market prices most informative?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 420-428.
    4. Peysakhovich, Alexander & Plagborg-Møller, Mikkel, 2012. "A note on proper scoring rules and risk aversion," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 357-361.
    5. Dai, Min & Jia, Yanwei & Kou, Steven, 2021. "The wisdom of the crowd and prediction markets," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 222(1), pages 561-578.
    6. Lefebvre, Mathieu & Vieider, Ferdinand M. & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2010. "Incentive effects on risk attitude in small probability prospects," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 115-120, November.
    7. Khan, Urmee & Lieli, Robert P., 2018. "Information flow between prediction markets, polls and media: Evidence from the 2008 presidential primaries," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 696-710.
    8. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Rasocha, Vlastimil, 2021. "Experimental methods: Eliciting beliefs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 234-256.
    9. Satopää, Ville A. & Baron, Jonathan & Foster, Dean P. & Mellers, Barbara A. & Tetlock, Philip E. & Ungar, Lyle H., 2014. "Combining multiple probability predictions using a simple logit model," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 344-356.
    10. Georgalos, Konstantinos & Paya, Ivan & Peel, David A., 2021. "On the contribution of the Markowitz model of utility to explain risky choice in experimental research," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 527-543.
    11. Despoina Alempaki & Emina Canic & Timothy L. Mullett & William J. Skylark & Chris Starmer & Neil Stewart & Fabio Tufano, 2019. "Reexamining How Utility and Weighting Functions Get Their Shapes: A Quasi-Adversarial Collaboration Providing a New Interpretation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(10), pages 4841-4862, October.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:3:p:214-235 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Dimitriadis, Timo & Gneiting, Tilmann & Jordan, Alexander I. & Vogel, Peter, 2024. "Evaluating probabilistic classifiers: The triptych," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 1101-1122.
    14. Andrew Grant & David Johnstone & Oh Kang Kwon, 2019. "A Probability Scoring Rule for Simultaneous Events," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 301-313, December.
    15. C. Alexander & M. Coulon & Y. Han & X. Meng, 2024. "Evaluating the discrimination ability of proper multi-variate scoring rules," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 334(1), pages 857-883, March.
    16. Edgar C. Merkle & Mark Steyvers, 2013. "Choosing a Strictly Proper Scoring Rule," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 292-304, December.
    17. Karl Schlag & James Tremewan & Joël Weele, 2015. "A penny for your thoughts: a survey of methods for eliciting beliefs," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 457-490, September.
    18. Tino Werner, 2022. "Elicitability of Instance and Object Ranking," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 123-140, June.
    19. Boulu-Reshef, Béatrice & Comeig, Irene & Donze, Robert & Weiss, Gregory D., 2016. "Risk aversion in prediction markets: A framed-field experiment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 5071-5075.
    20. Chambers, Christopher P. & Healy, Paul J. & Lambert, Nicolas S., 2019. "Proper scoring rules with general preferences: A dual characterization of optimal reports," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 322-341.
    21. Eyal Ert & Ido Erev, 2013. "On the descriptive value of loss aversion in decisions under risk: Six clarifications," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(3), pages 214-235, May.

    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:eee:intfor:v:35:y:2019:i:1:p:351-370. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijforecast .

    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.