IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v5y1988i1p58-69.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparaison empirique des méthodes d'inférence de probabilités subjectives

Author

Listed:
  • WILLIAM F. WRIGHT

Abstract

Résumé. Les méthodes d'inférence de probabilités subjectives que sont l'amplitude directe et la bissection ont été comparées par l'auteur en ce qui a trait à l'exactitude, telle que déterminée par l'environnement (fréquence relative), des probabilités résultant de l'application de ces méthodes et à l'acceptabilité des méthodes d'inférence. Chaque participant à l'expérience a utilisé les deux méthodes et attribué à chacune d'elles une cote d'acceptabilité. L'auteur a mis à la disposition des sujets un logiciel d'inférence interactive, comprenant l'affichage graphique sous forme d'histogramme des probabilités selon les deux méthodes d'inférence, afin de les aider et d'assurer une comparaison plus raffinée des méthodes. Des étudiants de deuxième cycle diplômés en gestion, bien renseignés tant sur le contexte de la tâche que sur les probabilités subjectives, se sont prêtés à l'expérience. L'inférence directe a donné des probabilités subjectives beaucoup plus exactes que la bissection et s'est révélée beaucoup plus acceptable aux yeux des participants.

Suggested Citation

  • William F. Wright, 1988. "Comparaison empirique des méthodes d'inférence de probabilités subjectives," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(1), pages 58-69, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:5:y:1988:i:1:p:58-69
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.1988.tb00695.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1988.tb00695.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1988.tb00695.x?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. Chesley, Gr, 1977. "Subjective-Probability Elicitation - Effect Of Congruity Of Datum And Response Mode On Performance," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(1), pages 1-11.
    2. Chesley, Gr, 1976. "Elicitation Of Subjective Probabilities - Laboratory Study In An Accounting Context," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(1), pages 27-48.
    3. Crosby, Ma, 1980. "Implications Of Prior Probability Elicitation On Auditor Sample-Size Decisions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(2), pages 585-593.
    4. Mohammad J. Abdolmohammadi, 1985. "Bayesian inference research in auditing: Some methodological suggestions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(1), pages 76-94, September.
    5. Thomas S. Wallsten & David V. Budescu, 1983. "State of the Art---Encoding Subjective Probabilities: A Psychological and Psychometric Review," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 151-173, February.
    6. Eger, C & Dickhaut, J, 1982. "An Examination Of The Conservative Information-Processing Bias In An Accounting Framework," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 711-723.
    7. Chesley, Gr, 1978. "Subjective-Probability Elicitation Techniques - Performance Comparison," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(2), pages 225-241.
    8. Carl S. Spetzler & Carl-Axel S. Staël Von Holstein, 1975. "Exceptional Paper--Probability Encoding in Decision Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 340-358, November.
    9. Solomon, I, 1982. "Probability Assessment By Individual Auditors And Audit Teams - An Empirical-Investigation," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 689-710.
    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. William F. Wright, 1988. "Empirical comparison of subjective probability elicitation methods," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(1), pages 47-57, September.
    2. Mohammad J. Abdolmohammadi, 1985. "Bayesian inference research in auditing: Some methodological suggestions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(1), pages 76-94, September.
    3. Lau, Hon-Shiang & Somarajan, C., 1995. "A proposal on improved procedures for estimating task-time distributions in PERT," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 39-52, August.
    4. Thomas W. Keelin & Bradford W. Powley, 2011. "Quantile-Parameterized Distributions," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(3), pages 206-219, September.
    5. James S. Dyer & James E. Smith, 2021. "Innovations in the Science and Practice of Decision Analysis: The Role of Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5364-5378, September.
    6. Brenner, Lyle A., 2003. "A random support model of the calibration of subjective probabilities," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 87-110, January.
    7. Matthias Meyer & Cathérine Grisar & Felix Kuhnert, 2011. "The impact of biases on simulation-based risk aggregation: modeling cognitive influences on risk assessment," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 79-105, September.
    8. Aurélien Baillon, 2008. "Eliciting Subjective Probabilities Through Exchangeable Events: An Advantage and a Limitation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 5(2), pages 76-87, June.
    9. López Martín, M.M. & García García, C.B. & García Pérez, J. & Sánchez Granero, M.A., 2012. "An alternative for robust estimation in Project Management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 220(2), pages 443-451.
    10. Ali E. Abbas & David V. Budescu & Hsiu-Ting Yu & Ryan Haggerty, 2008. "A Comparison of Two Probability Encoding Methods: Fixed Probability vs. Fixed Variable Values," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 190-202, December.
    11. Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2011. "An experimental study of the effect of uncertainty representation on decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 214(2), pages 380-392, October.
    12. James E. Smith & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2004. "Anniversary Article: Decision Analysis in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(5), pages 561-574, May.
    13. G.R. Chesley, 1986. "Interpretation of uncertainty expressions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 179-199, March.
    14. Brenner, Lyle & Griffin, Dale & Koehler, Derek J., 2005. "Modeling patterns of probability calibration with random support theory: Diagnosing case-based judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 64-81, May.
    15. Stocks, Morris H. & Harrell, Adrian, 1995. "The impact of an increase in accounting information level on the judgment quality of individuals and groups," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 20(7-8), pages 685-700.
    16. Simone Cerroni & Sandra Notaro & W. Douglass Shaw, 2011. "Do Monetary Incentives and Chained Questions Affect the Validity of Risk Estimates Elicited via the Exchangeability Method? An Experimental Investigation," Department of Economics Working Papers 1110, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    17. Kleijnen, J.P.C., 1978. "Economic framework for information systems," Other publications TiSEM 45d15745-54b7-49ee-8b4e-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    18. Hiba Baroud & Jose E. Ramirez‐Marquez & Kash Barker & Claudio M. Rocco, 2014. "Stochastic Measures of Network Resilience: Applications to Waterway Commodity Flows," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1317-1335, July.
    19. David V. Budescu & Timothy R. Johnson, 2011. "A model-based approach for the analysis of the calibration of probability judgments," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 857-869, December.
    20. Mel W Khaw & Luminita Stevens & Michael Woodford, 2021. "Individual differences in the perception of probability," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-25, April.

    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:wly:coacre:v:5:y:1988:i:1:p:58-69. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3846 .

    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.