Partition Dependence and Carryover Biases in Subjective Probability Assessment Surveys for Continuous Variables: Model-Based Estimation and Correction

References

• Allen M, Yen W (1979) Introduction to Measurement Theory (Wadsworth, Long Grove, IL).Google Scholar
• Anderson RM, Hobbs BF (2002) Using a Bayesian approach to quantify scale compatibility bias. Management Sci. 48(12): 1555–1568.Link, Google Scholar
• Bunn DW (1975) Anchoring bias in the assessment of subjective probability. Operat. Res. Quart. 26(2):449–454.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bunn DW (1979) Estimation of subjective probability distributions in forecasting and decision. Tech. Forecasting Soc. Change 14(2):205–216.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carroll RJ, Ruppert D (1988) Transformation and Weighting in Regression (Chapman and Hall, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clemen RT (2008) Improving and measuring the effectiveness of decision analysis: Linking decision analysis and behavioral decision research. Kugler T, Smith JC, Connolly T, Son Y-J, eds. Decision Modeling and Behavior in Complex and Uncertain Environments (Springer, New York), 3–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clemen RT, Ulu C (2008) Interior additivity and subjective probability assessment of continuous variables. Management Sci. 54(4): 835–851.Link, Google Scholar
• Cooke RM (1991) Experts in Uncertainty: Opinions and Subjective Probability in Science (Oxford University Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Fox CR, Clemen RT (2005) Subjective probability assessment in decision analysis: Partition dependence and bias toward the ignorance prior. Management Sci. 51(9):1417–1432.Link, Google Scholar
• Fox CR, Rottenstreich Y (2003) Partition priming in judgment under uncertainty. Psych. Sci. 14(3):195–200.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D, eds. (2002) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Halvorsen B (1996) Ordering effects in contingent valuation surveys. Environ. Resource Econom. 8(4):485–499.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jacobi SK, Hobbs BF (2007) Quantifying and mitigating the splitting bias and other value tree-induced weighting biases. Decision Anal. 4(4):194–210.Link, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (1982) Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kjaer T, Bech M, Gyrd-Hansen D, Hart-Hansen K (2006) Ordering effect and price sensitivity in discrete choice experiments: Need we worry? Health Econom. 15(11):1217–1228.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keeney R, von Winterfeldt D (1991) Eliciting probabilities from experts in complex technical problems. IEEE Trans. Engrg. Management 38(3):191–201.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meyer MA, Booker JA (2001) Eliciting and Analyzing Expert Judgment: A Practical Guide (SIAM, Philadelphia).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merkhofer MW (1987) Quantifying judgmental uncertainty: Methodology, experiences, and insights. IEEE Trans. Systems, Man, Cybernetics 17(5):741–752.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morgan M, Henrion M (1990) Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Management (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Hagan A (1998) Eliciting expert beliefs in substantial practical applications. Statistician 47(1):21–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rottenstreich Y, Tversky A (1997) Unpacking, repacking, and anchoring: Advances in support theory. Psych. Rev. 104(2):406–415.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spaccasassi C, Deleris L (2011) A Web-based tool for expert elicitation in distributed teams. Proc. 8th Bayesian Modelling Appl. Workshop of UAI 2011 (Barcelona, Spain).Google Scholar
• Spetzler CS, Staël Von Holstein C-A (1975) Probability encoding in decision analysis. Management Sci. 22(3):340–352.Link, Google Scholar
• Stewart JM, O’Shea E, Donaldson C, Shackely P (2002) Do ordering effects matter in willingness-to-pay studies of health care? J. Health Econom. 21(4):585–599.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Switzer III FS, Sniezek JA (1991) Judgment processes in motivation: Anchoring and adjustment effects on judgment and behavior. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 49(2):208–229.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Teisl MF, Boyle KJ, McCollum DW, Reiling SD (1995) Test-retest reliability of contingent valuation with independent sample pretest and posttest control groups. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 77(3): 613–619.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Koehler DJ (1994) Support theory: A nonextensional representation of subjective probability. Psych. Rev. 101(4):547–567.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Whyte G, Sebenius J (1997) The effect of multiple anchors on anchoring in individual and group judgment. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 69(1):75–85.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wright W, Anderson U (1989) Effects of situation familiarity and financial incentives on use of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic for probability assessment. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 44(1):68–82.Crossref, Google Scholar