IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v14y1986i5p401-407.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing probability distributions by the fractile method: Evidence from managers

Author

Listed:
  • Samson, Danny A
  • Thomas, Howard

Abstract

Various approaches have been offered as aids for assessing subjective probability distributions. These include the fractile method, the method of relative heights and applications of psychometric methods, e.g. multi-dimensional scaling. Previous laboratory research has examined and compared these methods primarily using undergraduate students rather than relatively experienced or practising managers. In this study of the fractile method, the experimental subjects were managers who had an ongoing instructional relationship with the authors. Therefore, conclusions can be drawn about practising managers' biases in probability assessment. Groups with more expertise in statistics and more managerial experience were found to be better calibrated than those with lower expertise and less experience. Training was also found to improve assessment performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Samson, Danny A & Thomas, Howard, 1986. "Assessing probability distributions by the fractile method: Evidence from managers," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 401-407.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:14:y:1986:i:5:p:401-407
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0305-0483(86)90081-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Goodwin, Paul, 2005. "Providing support for decisions based on time series information under conditions of asymmetric loss," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 163(2), pages 388-402, June.

    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:eee:jomega:v:14:y:1986:i:5:p:401-407. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    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.