IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v150y2019icp62-82.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Better calibration when predicting from experience (rather than description)

Author

Listed:
  • Camilleri, Adrian R.
  • Newell, Ben R.

Abstract

The over-precision bias refers to the tendency for individuals to believe that their predictions are much more accurate than they really are. We investigated whether this type of overconfidence is moderated by how task-relevant information is obtained. We contrast cases in which individuals were presented with information about two options with equal average performance – one with low variance the other with high variance – in experience format (i.e., observed individual performance outcomes sequentially) or description format (i.e., presented with a summary of the outcome distribution). Across three experiments, we found that those learning from description tended to be over-precise whereas those learning from experience were under-precise. These differences were driven by a relatively better calibrated representation of the underlying outcome distribution by those presented with experience-based information. We argue that those presented with experience-based information have better learning due to more opportunities for prediction-error.

Suggested Citation

  • Camilleri, Adrian R. & Newell, Ben R., 2019. "Better calibration when predicting from experience (rather than description)," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 62-82.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:150:y:2019:i:c:p:62-82
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.10.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597817307902
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.10.006?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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:1:p:1-14 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Rakow, Tim & Demes, Kali A. & Newell, Ben R., 2008. "Biased samples not mode of presentation: Re-examining the apparent underweighting of rare events in experience-based choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 168-179, July.
    3. Camilleri, Adrian R., 2017. "The Presentation Format of Review Score Information Influences Consumer Preferences Through the Attribution of Outlier Reviews," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-14.
    4. Hogarth, Robin M. & Soyer, Emre, 2016. "Kind and Wicked Experience in Marketing Management," Journal of Marketing Behavior, now publishers, vol. 2(2-3), pages 81-99, December.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i::p:159-161 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Ben R. Newell & Tim Rakow & Eldad Yechiam & Michael Sambur, 2016. "Rare disaster information can increase risk-taking," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(2), pages 158-161, February.
    7. Moore, Don A. & Carter, Ashli B. & Yang, Heather H.J., 2015. "Wide of the mark: Evidence on the underlying causes of overprecision in judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 110-120.
    8. Lejarraga, Tomás & Gonzalez, Cleotilde, 2011. "Effects of feedback and complexity on repeated decisions from description," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 286-295.
    9. Christine Kaufmann & Martin Weber & Emily Haisley, 2013. "The Role of Experience Sampling and Graphical Displays on One's Investment Risk Appetite," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 323-340, July.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:7:p:467-476 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Barron, Greg & Leider, Stephen & Stack, Jennifer, 2008. "The effect of safe experience on a warnings' impact: Sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 125-142, July.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:7:p:518-529 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Ido Erev & Ira Glozman & Ralph Hertwig, 2008. "What impacts the impact of rare events," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 153-177, April.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:6:p:447-460 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Yaniv, Ilan, 2004. "Receiving other people's advice: Influence and benefit," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 1-13, January.
    16. Stone, Eric R. & Opel, Ryan B., 2000. "Training to Improve Calibration and Discrimination: The Effects of Performance and Environmental Feedback," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 282-309, November.
    17. Eldad Yechiam & Greg Barron & Ido Erev, 2005. "The Role of Personal Experience in Contributing to Different Patterns of Response to Rare Terrorist Attacks," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 49(3), pages 430-439, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lejarraga, Tomás & Lejarraga, José, 2020. "Confidence and the description–experience distinction," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 201-212.
    2. Ferretti, Valentina & Montibeller, Gilberto & von Winterfeldt, Detlof, 2023. "Testing the effectiveness of debiasing techniques to reduce overprecision in the elicitation of subjective continuous probability distributions," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 115333, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Ferretti, Valentina & Montibeller, Gilberto & von Winterfeldt, Detlof, 2023. "Testing the effectiveness of debiasing techniques to reduce overprecision in the elicitation of subjective continuous probability distributions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(2), pages 661-675.

    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. Barron, Greg & Ursino, Giovanni, 2013. "Underweighting rare events in experience based decisions: Beyond sample error," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 278-286.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:5:p:1146-1175 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. repec:jdm:journl:v:17:y:2022:i:5:p:1146-1175 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Lejarraga, Tomás & Lejarraga, José, 2020. "Confidence and the description–experience distinction," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 201-212.
    5. Liat Hadar & Craig R. Fox, 2009. "Information asymmetry in decision from description versus decision from experience," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(4), pages 317-325, June.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:4:p:317-325 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Shereen J. Chaudhry & Michael Hand & Howard Kunreuther, 2020. "Broad bracketing for low probability events," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 211-244, December.
    8. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L'Haridon & Corina Paraschiv, 2011. "Experienced vs. Described Uncertainty: Do We Need Two Prospect Theory Specifications?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(10), pages 1879-1895, October.
    9. Orestis Kopsacheilis, 2018. "The role of information search and its influence on risk preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 311-339, May.
    10. Lejarraga, Tomás & Gonzalez, Cleotilde, 2011. "Effects of feedback and complexity on repeated decisions from description," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 286-295.
    11. Eyal Ert & Stefan Trautmann, 2014. "Sampling experience reverses preferences for ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 31-42, August.
    12. Davide Marchiori & Sibilla Di Guida & Ido Erev, 2013. "Noisy retrievers and the four-fold reaction to rare events," Working Papers 3, Venice School of Management - Department of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.
    13. Tomás Lejarraga & Johannes Müller-Trede, 2017. "When Experience Meets Description: How Dyads Integrate Experiential and Descriptive Information in Risky Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(6), pages 1953-1971, June.
    14. Hogarth, Robin M. & Soyer, Emre, 2015. "Communicating forecasts: The simplicity of simulated experience," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1800-1809.
    15. Lawrence, Michael & Goodwin, Paul & O'Connor, Marcus & Onkal, Dilek, 2006. "Judgmental forecasting: A review of progress over the last 25 years," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 493-518.
    16. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    17. Gehrig, Thomas & Güth, Werner & Leví0nský, René & Popova, Vera, 2010. "On the evolution of professional consulting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 113-126, October.
    18. Fildes, Robert & Goodwin, Paul & Lawrence, Michael & Nikolopoulos, Konstantinos, 2009. "Effective forecasting and judgmental adjustments: an empirical evaluation and strategies for improvement in supply-chain planning," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 3-23.
    19. Ryvkin, Dmitry & Krajč, Marian & Ortmann, Andreas, 2012. "Are the unskilled doomed to remain unaware?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 1012-1031.
    20. Patt, Anthony G. & Bowles, Hannah Riley & Cash, David W., 2006. "Mechanisms for Enhancing the Credibility of an Adviser: Prepayment and Aligned Incentives," Working Paper Series rwp06-010, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    21. Laura Hueber & Rene Schwaiger, 2021. "Debiasing Through Experience Sampling: The Case of Myopic Loss Aversion," Working Papers 2021-01, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    22. Özalp Özer & Upender Subramanian & Yu Wang, 2018. "Information Sharing, Advice Provision, or Delegation: What Leads to Higher Trust and Trustworthiness?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 474-493, January.
    23. Michael Muthukrishna & Joseph Henrich & Wataru Toyokawa & Takeshi Hamamura & Tatsuya Kameda & Steven J Heine, 2018. "Overconfidence is universal? Elicitation of Genuine Overconfidence (EGO) procedure reveals systematic differences across domain, task knowledge, and incentives in four populations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-30, August.

    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:jobhdp:v:150:y:2019:i:c:p:62-82. 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/obhdp .

    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.