Quantile Judgments of Lognormal Losses: An Experimental Investigation

References

• Aitchison J, Brown JAC (1957) The Log-Normal Distribution (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Aspinall W (2010) A route to more tractable expert advice. Nature 463(7279):294–295.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bansal S, Gutierrez GJ, Keiser JR (2017) Using experts’ noisy quantile judgments to quantify risks: Theory and application to agribusiness. Oper. Res. 65(5):1115–1130.Link, Google Scholar
• Barberis N (2013) The psychology of tail events: Progress and challenges. Amer. Econom. Rev. 103(3):611–616.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bier VM (2004) Implications of the research on expert overconfidence and dependence. Reliability Engrg. System Safety 85(1–3):321–329.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bimpikis K, Markakis MG (2015) Inventory pooling under heavy-tailed demand. Management Sci. 62(6):1800–1813.Link, Google Scholar
• Block RA, Harper DR (1991) Overconfidence in estimation: Testing the anchoring-and-adjustment hypothesis. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 49(2):188–207.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Budescu DV, Du N (2007) Coherence and consistency of investors’ probability judgments. Management Sci. 53(11):1731–1744.Link, Google Scholar
• Burns Z, Chiu A, Wu G (2010) Overweighting of small probabilities. Cochran JJ, Cox LA Jr, Keskinocak P, Kharoufeh JP, Smith JC, eds. Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
• Campbell JY, Lo AW, MacKinlay AC (1996) The Econometrics of Financial Markets, 2nd ed. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Clauset A, Shalizi CR, Newman MEJ (2009) Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Rev. 51(4):661–703.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clemen RT (1996) Making Hard Decisions (Duxbury Press, Belmont, CA).Google Scholar
• Clemen B (2001) Assessing 10-50-90s: A surprise. Decision Anal. Newslett. 20(1):2, 15.Google Scholar
• Clemen RT, Winkler RL (1985) Limits for the precision and value of information from dependent sources. Oper. Res. 33(2):427–442.Link, Google Scholar
• Clemen RT, Winkler RL (2007) Aggregating probability distributions. Ward E, Miles RF, von Winterfeldt D, eds. Advances in Decision Analysis: From Foundations to Applications (Cambridge University Press, New York), 154–176.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cooke R (1991) Experts in Uncertainty: Opinion and Subjective Probability in Science (Oxford University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Epley N, Gilovich T (2001) Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic. Psych. Sci. 12(5):391–396.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Erev I, Wallsten TS, Budescu DV (1994) Simultaneous over-and underconfidence: The role of error in judgment processes. Psych. Rev. 101(3):519–527.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiedler K (2000) Beware of samples! A cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases. Psych. Rev. 107(4):659–676.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fisher ML, Hammond JH, Obermeyer WR, Raman A (1994) Making supply meet demand in an uncertain world. Harvard Bus. Rev. 72(3):83–92.Google Scholar
• Gaba A, Popescu DG, Chen X (2018) Assessing uncertainty from point forecasts. Management Sci. 65(1):90–106.Link, Google Scholar
• Galton E (1889) Natural Inheritance (Macmillan, London).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grushka-Cockayne Y, Jose VRR, Lichtendahl KC (2017a) Ensembles of overfit and overconfident forecasts. Oper. Res. 63(4):1110–1130.Google Scholar
• Grushka-Cockayne Y, Lichtendahl KC, Jose VRR, Winkler RL (2017b) Quantile evaluation, sensitivity to bracketing, and sharing business payoffs. Oper. Res. 65(3):712–728.Link, Google Scholar
• Hertwig R, Barron G, Weber EU, Erev I (2004) Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psych. Sci. 15(8):534–539.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hertwig R, Barron G, Weber EU, Erev I (2006) The role of information sampling in risky choice. Fiedler K, Juslin P, eds. Information Sampling and Adaptive Cognition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 72–91.Google Scholar
• Hoch SJ (1985) Counterfactual reasoning and accuracy in predicting personal events. J. Experiment. Psych. Learn. Memory Cognition 11(4):719.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hora SC (2004) Probability judgments for continuous quantities: Linear combinations and calibration. Management Sci. 50(5):597–604.Link, Google Scholar
• Hora SC (2007) Eliciting probabilities from experts. Ward E, Miles RF, von Winterfeldt D, eds. Advances in Decision Analysis: From Foundations to Applications (Cambridge University Press, New York), 154–176.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jain K, Mukherjee K, Bearden JN, Gaba A (2013) Unpacking the future: A nudge toward wider subjective confidence intervals. Management Sci. 59(9):1970–1987.Link, Google Scholar
• Jose VRR, Winkler RL (2009) Evaluating quantile assessments. Oper. Res. 57(5):1287–1297.Link, Google Scholar
• Juslin P, Wennerholm P, Olsson H (1999) Format dependence in subjective probability calibration. J. Experiment. Psych. Learn. Memory Cognition 25(4):1038–1052.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Juslin P, Winman A, Hansson P (2007) The naïve intuitive statistician: A naïve sampling model of intuitive confidence intervals. Psych. Rev. 114(3):678–703.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Juslin P, Winman A, Olsson H (2000) Naive empiricism and dogmatism in confidence research: A critical examination of the hard-easy effect. Psych. Rev. 107(2):384–396.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Juslin P, Winman A, Olsson H (2003) Calibration, additivity, and source independence of probability judgments in general knowledge and sensory discrimination tasks. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 92(1–2):34–51.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Frederick S (2002) Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D, eds. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (Cambridge University Press, New York),49–81.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kareev Y (2000) Seven (indeed, plus or minus two) and the detection of correlations. Psych. Rev. 107(2):397–402.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kareev Y, Arnon S, Horwitz-Zeliger R (2002) On the misperception of variability. J. Experiment. Psych. General 131(2):287–297.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klayman J, Soll JB, Gonzalez-Vallejo C, Barlas S (1999) Overconfidence: It depends on how, what, and whom you ask. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 79(3):216–247.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klayman J, Soll JB, Juslin P, Winman A (2006) Subjective confidence and the sampling of knowledge. Fiedler K, Juslin P, Fiedler K, Juslin P, eds. Information Sampling and Adaptive Cognition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 153–182.Google Scholar
• Koehler DJ (1991) Explanation, imagination, and confidence in judgment. Psych. Bull. 110(3):499–519.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Larrick RP, Soll JB (2008) The MPG illusion. Science 320(5883):1593–1594.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lichtenstein S, Fischhoff B, Phillips LD (1982) Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A, eds. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 306–334.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Limpert E, Stahel WA, Abbt M (2001) Log-normal distributions across the sciences: Keys and clues. Bioscience 51(5):341–352.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lin SW, Bier VM (2008) A study of expert overconfidence. Reliability Engrg. System Safety 93(5):711–721.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lou W, Chen H, Zheng F, Wu R (2009) Economic loss assessment of typhoon disaster based on principal component neural network. (In Chinese.) Geographical Res. 28(5):1243–1254.Google Scholar
• McKenzie CR, Liersch MJ, Yaniv I (2008) Overconfidence in interval estimates: What does expertise buy you? Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 107(2):179–191.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meyer MA, Booker JM (2001) Eliciting and Analyzing Expert Judgment: A Practical Guide (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moore DA, Carter AB, Yang HHJ (2015a) Wide of the mark: Evidence on the underlying causes of overprecision in judgment. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 131(November):110–120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moore DA, Tenney ER, Haran U (2015b) Overprecision in judgment. Keren G, Wu G, eds. The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 37 (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK), 182–209.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pahlke J, Strasser S, Vieider FM (2015) Responsibility effects in decision making under risk. J. Risk Uncertainty 51(2):125–146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Palley AB, Soll JB (2019) Extracting the wisdom of crowds when information is shared. Management Sci. 65(5):2291–2309.Abstract, Google Scholar
• Rolle F (2001) Assessing probabilities at DuPont—Maybe not a surprise. Decision Anal. Newslett. 20(1):3.Google Scholar
• Russo JE, Schoemaker PJ (1992) Managing overconfidence. Sloan Management Rev. 33(2):7–17.Google Scholar
• Shlyakhter AI, Kamman DM, Broido CL, Wilson R (1994) Quantifying the credibility of energy projections from trends in past data: The US energy sector. Energy Policy 22(2):119–129.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Soll JB (1996) Determinants of overconfidence and miscalibration: The roles of random error and ecological structure. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 65(2):117–137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Soll JB, Klayman J (2004) Overconfidence in interval estimates. J. Experiment. Psych. Learn. Memory Cognition 30(2):299–314.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tannenbaum D, Fox CR, Ülkümen G (2017) Judgment extremity and accuracy under epistemic vs. aleatory uncertainty. Management Sci. 63(2):497–518.Link, Google Scholar
• Teigen KH, Jørgensen N (2005) When 90% confidence intervals are 50% certain: On the credibility of credible intervals. Appl. Cognitive Psych. 19(4):455–475.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tomassini LA, Solomon I, Romney MB, Krogstad JL (1982) Calibration of auditors’ probabilistic judgments: Some empirical evidence. Organ. Behav. Human Performance 30(3):391–406.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tong J, Feiler D (2016) A behavioral model of forecasting: Naive statistics on mental samples. Management Sci. 63(11):3609–3627.Link, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walters DJ, Fernbach PM, Fox CR, Sloman SA (2016) Known unknowns: A critical determinant of confidence and calibration. Management Sci. 63(12):4298–4307.Link, Google Scholar
• Winkler RL (1981) Combining probability distributions from dependent information sources. Management Sci. 27(4):479–488.Link, Google Scholar
• Winman A, Hansson P, Juslin P (2004) Subjective probability intervals: How to reduce overconfidence by interval evaluation. J. Experiment. Psych. Learning Mem. Cognition 30(6):1167–1175.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yaniv I, Foster DP (1995) Graininess of judgment under uncertainty: An accuracy-informativeness trade-off. J. Experiment. Psych. General 124(4):424–432.Crossref, Google Scholar