IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v71y1989i2p363-369..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Subjective Probabilities and Scoring Rules: Experimental Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Robert G. Nelson
  • David A. Bessler

Abstract

This paper provides an articulation of the theory of scoring rules that leads to a testable hypothesis about strategic behavior under an improper rule. Subjects in a laboratory setting were first screened for linear utility in the range of rewards. Those that passed this test were used as subjects in a probability forecasting experiment. Results suggest that theory holds when subjects forecast over many periods, although inexperienced subjects may fail to exploit the dominant strategy in the initial periods.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert G. Nelson & David A. Bessler, 1989. "Subjective Probabilities and Scoring Rules: Experimental Evidence," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(2), pages 363-369.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:71:y:1989:i:2:p:363-369.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/1241594
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Casillas-Olvera, Gabriel & Bessler, David A., 2006. "Probability forecasting and central bank accountability," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 223-234, February.
    2. Delavande, Adeline & Giné, Xavier & McKenzie, David, 2011. "Measuring subjective expectations in developing countries: A critical review and new evidence," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 151-163, March.
    3. Canen, Nathan & Chakraborty, Anujit, 2023. "Belief elicitation in political protest experiments: When the mode does not teach us about incentives to protest," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 216(C), pages 320-331.
    4. Palfrey, Thomas R. & Wang, Stephanie W., 2009. "On eliciting beliefs in strategic games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 98-109, August.
    5. Robertson, Matthew J., 2018. "Contests with Ex-Ante Target Setting," CRETA Online Discussion Paper Series 47, Centre for Research in Economic Theory and its Applications CRETA.
    6. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    7. Ivanov, Asen, 2011. "Attitudes to ambiguity in one-shot normal-form games: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 366-394, March.
    8. Keith Coble & Zhijun Yang & M. Darren Hudson, 2011. "Using experimental economics to evaluate alternative subjective elicitation procedures," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(14), pages 1729-1736.
    9. Nolan Miller & Paul Resnick & Richard Zeckhauser, 2005. "Eliciting Informative Feedback: The Peer-Prediction Method," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(9), pages 1359-1373, September.
    10. David Danz & Lise Vesterlund & Alistair J. Wilson, 2020. "Belief Elicitation: Limiting Truth Telling with Information on Incentives," NBER Working Papers 27327, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Langrock, Ines & Hurley, Terrance M., 2006. "Risk Preferences, Perceptions and Systematic Biases," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21343, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Sherrick, Bruce J., 2002. "The Accuracy Of Producers' Probability Beliefs: Evidence And Implications For Insurance Valuation," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(1), pages 1-17, July.

    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:oup:ajagec:v:71:y:1989:i:2:p:363-369.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.