IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v59y2013i9p1970-1987.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unpacking the Future: A Nudge Toward Wider Subjective Confidence Intervals

Author

Listed:
  • Kriti Jain

    (Decision Sciences, INSEAD, Singapore 138676)

  • Kanchan Mukherjee

    (Indian Institute of Management Bangalore Bangalore 560076, India)

  • J. Neil Bearden

    (Decision Sciences, INSEAD, Singapore 138676)

  • Anil Gaba

    (Decision Sciences, INSEAD, Singapore 138676)

Abstract

Subjective probabilistic judgments in forecasting are inevitable in many real-life domains. A common way to obtain such judgments is to assess fractiles or confidence intervals. However, these judgments tend to be systematically overconfident. Further, it has proved particularly difficult to debias such forecasts and improve the calibration. This paper proposes a simple process that systematically leads to wider confidence intervals, thus reducing overconfidence. With a series of experiments, including with professionals, we show that unpacking the distal future into intermediate more proximal futures systematically improves calibration. We refer to this phenomenon as the time unpacking effect, find it is robust to different elicitation formats, and address the possible reasons behind it. We further show that this results in better overall forecasting performance when improved calibration is traded off against less sharpness, and that substantive benefits can be obtained even from just one level of time unpacking. This paper was accepted by Teck Ho, decision analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Kriti Jain & Kanchan Mukherjee & J. Neil Bearden & Anil Gaba, 2013. "Unpacking the Future: A Nudge Toward Wider Subjective Confidence Intervals," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(9), pages 1970-1987, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:59:y:2013:i:9:p:1970-1987
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1120.1696
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1696
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1696?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Klayman, Joshua & Soll, Jack B. & Gonzalez-Vallejo, Claudia & Barlas, Sema, 1999. "Overconfidence: It Depends on How, What, and Whom You Ask, , , , , , , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 216-247, September.
    2. Barberis, Nicholas & Thaler, Richard, 2003. "A survey of behavioral finance," Handbook of the Economics of Finance, in: G.M. Constantinides & M. Harris & R. M. Stulz (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Finance, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 18, pages 1053-1128, Elsevier.
    3. Dominic D. P. Johnson & James H. Fowler, 2011. "The evolution of overconfidence," Nature, Nature, vol. 477(7364), pages 317-320, September.
    4. Deaves, Richard & Lüders, Erik & Schröder, Michael, 2010. "The dynamics of overconfidence: Evidence from stock market forecasters," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 402-412, September.
    5. G.M. Constantinides & M. Harris & R. M. Stulz (ed.), 2003. "Handbook of the Economics of Finance," Handbook of the Economics of Finance, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1, March.
    6. Uriel Haran & Don A. Moore & Carey K. Morewedge, 2010. "A simple remedy for overprecision in judgment," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(7), pages 467-476, December.
    7. Allan H. Murphy & Robert L. Winkler, 1977. "Reliability of Subjective Probability Forecasts of Precipitation and Temperature," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 26(1), pages 41-47, March.
    8. R. Winkler & Javier Muñoz & José Cervera & José Bernardo & Gail Blattenberger & Joseph Kadane & Dennis Lindley & Allan Murphy & Robert Oliver & David Ríos-Insua, 1996. "Scoring rules and the evaluation of probabilities," TEST: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 5(1), pages 1-60, June.
    9. Victor Richmond R. Jose & Robert L. Winkler, 2009. "Evaluating Quantile Assessments," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 1287-1297, October.
    10. David V. Budescu & Ning Du, 2007. "Coherence and Consistency of Investors' Probability Judgments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(11), pages 1731-1744, November.
    11. G.M. Constantinides & M. Harris & R. M. Stulz (ed.), 2003. "Handbook of the Economics of Finance," Handbook of the Economics of Finance, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 2, March.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:7:p:467-476 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Craig R. Fox & Amos Tversky, 1998. "A Belief-Based Account of Decision Under Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(7), pages 879-895, July.
    14. Arkes, Hal R. & Christensen, Caryn & Lai, Cheryl & Blumer, Catherine, 1987. "Two methods of reducing overconfidence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 133-144, February.
    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. Jordan Tong & Daniel Feiler, 2017. "A Behavioral Model of Forecasting: Naive Statistics on Mental Samples," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(11), pages 3609-3627, November.
    2. Te Bao & Brice Corgnet & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Katsuhiko Okada & Yohanes E. Riyanto & Jiahua Zhu, 2022. "Financial Forecasting in the Lab and the Field: Qualified Professionals vs. Smart Students," ISER Discussion Paper 1156, Institute of Social and Economic Research, The University of Osaka.
    3. Chen, Zhi & Gaba, Anil & Tsetlin, Ilia & Winkler, Robert L., 2022. "Evaluating quantile forecasts in the M5 uncertainty competition," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 1531-1545.
    4. Saemi Park & David V. Budescu, 2015. "Aggregating multiple probability intervals to improve calibration," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(2), pages 130-143, March.
    5. Anil Gaba & Ilia Tsetlin & Robert L. Winkler, 2017. "Combining Interval Forecasts," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 14(1), pages 1-20, March.
    6. Victor Richmond R. Jose, 2017. "Percentage and Relative Error Measures in Forecast Evaluation," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 200-211, February.
    7. Victor Richmond R. Jose, 2017. "Percentage and Relative Error Measures in Forecast Evaluation," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 200-211, February.
    8. Paolo Crosetto & Thomas De Haan, 2022. "Comparing input interfaces to elicit belief distributions," Working Papers 2022-01, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    9. Huisman, Ronald & Van der Sar, Nico L. & Zwinkels, Remco C.J., 2021. "Volatility expectations and disagreement," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 379-393.
    10. 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.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:2:p:130-143 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Steffen Keck & Wenjie Tang, 2018. "Gender Composition and Group Confidence Judgment: The Perils of All-Male Groups," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(12), pages 5877-5898, December.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Sulian Wang & Chen Wang, 2021. "Quantile Judgments of Lognormal Losses: An Experimental Investigation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 78-99, March.

    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. Menkhoff, Lukas & Nikiforow, Marina, 2009. "Professionals' endorsement of behavioral finance: Does it impact their perception of markets and themselves?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 318-329, August.
    2. Sautner, Zacharias & Weber, Martin, 2005. "Stock options and employee behavior," Papers 05-26, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    3. David V. Budescu & Ning Du, 2007. "Coherence and Consistency of Investors' Probability Judgments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(11), pages 1731-1744, November.
    4. Gilberto Montibeller & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2015. "Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1230-1251, July.
    5. Steffen Keck & Wenjie Tang, 2018. "Gender Composition and Group Confidence Judgment: The Perils of All-Male Groups," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(12), pages 5877-5898, December.
    6. Shraddha Mishra & Raj Kumar, 2016. "Investigation of overvalued and undervalued stocks: the case of BSE Sensex," International Journal of Business Excellence, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(2), pages 177-189.
    7. Abootaleb Shirvani & Svetlozar T. Rachev & Frank J. Fabozzi, 2019. "A Rational Finance Explanation of the Stock Predictability Puzzle," Papers 1911.02194, arXiv.org.
    8. F. Cavalli & A. Naimzada & N. Pecora & M. Pireddu, 2021. "Market sentiment and heterogeneous agents in an evolutive financial model," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 1189-1219, September.
    9. Nicolas Coeurdacier & Hélène Rey, 2013. "Home Bias in Open Economy Financial Macroeconomics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 51(1), pages 63-115, March.
    10. repec:rza:wpaper:235 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. F. Cavalli & A. Naimzada & M. Pireddu, 2017. "An evolutive financial market model with animal spirits: imitation and endogenous beliefs," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 1007-1040, November.
    12. Dmitri G. Markovitch & Joel H. Steckel & Bernard Yeung, 2005. "Using Capital Markets as Market Intelligence: Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(10), pages 1467-1480, October.
    13. Vivien Lespagnol & Juliette Rouchier, 2018. "Trading Volume and Price Distortion: An Agent-Based Model with Heterogenous Knowledge of Fundamentals," Post-Print hal-02084910, HAL.
    14. Pontiff, Jeffrey, 2006. "Costly arbitrage and the myth of idiosyncratic risk," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 35-52, October.
    15. Ning Du & David V. Budescu, 2005. "The Effects of Imprecise Probabilities and Outcomes in Evaluating Investment Options," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(12), pages 1791-1803, December.
    16. Anufriev, Mikhail & Tuinstra, Jan, 2013. "The impact of short-selling constraints on financial market stability in a heterogeneous agents model," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1523-1543.
    17. Hongjun Yan, 2010. "Is Noise Trading Cancelled Out by Aggregation?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(7), pages 1047-1059, July.
    18. Forbeneh Agha Jude & Ntieche Adamou, 2018. "Bank Loan Financing Decisions of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: The Significance of Owner/Managers¡¯ Behaviours," International Journal of Economics and Finance, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(5), pages 231-241, May.
    19. Hirshleifer, David & Subrahmanyam, Avanidhar & Titman, Sheridan, 2006. "Feedback and the success of irrational investors," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 311-338, August.
    20. Charilaos Mertzanis & Noha Allam, 2018. "Political Instability and Herding Behaviour: Evidence from Egypt’s Stock Market," Journal of Emerging Market Finance, Institute for Financial Management and Research, vol. 17(1), pages 29-59, April.
    21. Michael Grubb, 2015. "Failing to Choose the Best Price: Theory, Evidence, and Policy," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 47(3), pages 303-340, November.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:59:y:2013:i:9:p:1970-1987. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.