Combining Probability Forecasts: 60% and 60% Is 60%, but Likely and Likely Is Very Likely

References

• Ariely D, Tung Au W, Bender RH, Budescu DV, Dietz CB, Gu H, Wallsten TS, Zauberman G (2000) The effects of averaging subjective probability estimates between and within judges. J. Experiment. Psych. Appl. 6(2):130–147.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ashton AH, Ashton RH (1985) Aggregating subjective forecasts: Some empirical results. Management Sci. 31(12):1499–1508.Link, Google Scholar
• Baron J, Mellers BA, Tetlock PE, Stone E, Ungar LH (2014) Two reasons to make aggregated probability forecasts more extreme. Decision Anal. 11(2):133–145.Link, Google Scholar
• Berg S (1993) Condorcet’s jury theorem, dependency among jurors. Soc. Choice Welfare 10(1):87–95.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beyth‐Marom R (1982) How probable is probable? A numerical translation of verbal probability expressions. J. Forecasting 1(3):257–269.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Biswas D, Zhao G, Lehmann DR (2011) The impact of sequential data on consumer confidence in relative judgments. J. Consumer Res. 37(5):874–887.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Budescu DV, Yu H-T (2006) To Bayes or not to Bayes? A comparison of two classes of models of information aggregation. Decision Anal. 3(3):145–162.Link, Google Scholar
• Budescu DV, Yu H-T (2007) Aggregation of opinions based on correlated cues and advisors. J. Behav. Decision Making 20(2):153–177.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Budescu DV, Weinberg S, Wallsten TS (1988) Decisions based on numerically and verbally expressed uncertainties. J. Experiment. Psych. Human Perception Performance 14(2):281–294.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Budescu DV, Zwick R, Wallsten TS, Erev I (1990) Integration of linguistic probabilities. Internat. J. Man-Machine Stud. 33(6):657–676.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clapper J (2015) Intelligence Community Directive 203: Analytic Standards. Accessed May 22, 2020, https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICD/ICD 203 Analytic Standards.pdf.Google Scholar
• Condorcet M (1785) Essay on the Application of Analysis to the Probability of Majority Decisions (Imprimerie Royale, Paris).Google Scholar
• Dunning D (2007) Prediction: The inside view. Kruglanski AW, Higgins ET, eds. Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, 2nd ed. (Guilford Press, New York), 69–90.Google Scholar
• Erev I, Cohen BL (1990) Verbal vs. numerical probabilities: Efficiency, biases, and the preference paradox. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 45(1):1–18.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galton F (1907) Vox populi. Nature 75(1907):450–451.Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer G, Hoffrage U (1995) How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psych. Rev. 102(4):684–704.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoffrage U, Lindsey S, Hertwig R, Gigerenzer G (2000) Communicating statistical information. Science 290(5500):2261–2262.Google Scholar
• Isenberg DJ (1986) Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 50(6):1141–1151.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Lovallo D (1993) Timid choices and bold forecasts: A cognitive perspective on risk taking. Management Sci. 39(1):17–31.Link, Google Scholar
• Larrick RP, Soll JB (2006) Intuitions about combining opinions: Misappreciation of the averaging principle. Management Sci. 52(1):111–127.Link, Google Scholar
• Lichtenstein S, Newman JR (1967) Empirical scaling of common verbal phrases associated with numerical probabilities. Psychonomic Sci. 9(10):563–564.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lord CG, Ross L, Lepper MR (1979) Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 37(11):2098–2109.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Plattner G-K, Edenhofer O, Stocker TF, Field CB, Ebi KL, Matschoss PR (2011) The IPCC AR5 guidance note on consistent treatment of uncertainties: A common approach across the working groups. Climatic Change 108(4):675.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sah S, Loewenstein G (2015) Conflicted advice and second opinions: Benefits, but unintended consequences. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 130:89–107.Google Scholar
• Sarvary M (2002) Temporal differentiation and the market for second opinions. J. Marketing Res. 39(1):129–136.Google Scholar
• Schwartz J, Luce MF, Ariely D (2011) Are consumers too trusting? The effects of relationships with expert advisers. J. Marketing Res. 48(SPL):S163–S174.Google Scholar
• Stoner JAF (1968) Risky and cautious shifts in group decisions: The influence of widely held values. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 4(4):442–459.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stroop JR (1932) Is the judgment of the group better than that of the average member of the group? J. Experiment. Psych. General 15(5):550–562.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tannenbaum D, Fox CR, Ülkümen G (2016) Judgment extremity and accuracy under epistemic vs. aleatory uncertainty. Management Sci. 63(2):497–518.Link, Google Scholar
• Teigen KH (2001) When equal chances = good chances: Verbal probabilities and the equiprobability effect. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 85(1):77–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Teigen KH, Brun W (1995) Yes, but it is uncertain: Direction and communicative intention of verbal probabilistic terms. Acta Psych. 88(3):233–258.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Teigen KH, Brun W (1999) The directionality of verbal probability expressions: Effects on decisions, predictions, and probabilistic reasoning. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 80(2):155–190.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wallsten TS, Diederich A (2001) Understanding pooled subjective probability estimates. Math. Soc. Sci. 41(1):1–18.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wallsten TS, Budescu DV, Tsao CJ (1997a) Combining linguistic probabilities. Psychologische Beiträge 39(1–2):27–55.Google Scholar
• Wallsten TS, Budescu DV, Erev I, Diederich A (1997b) Evaluating and combining subjective probability estimates. J. Behav. Decision Making 10(3):243–268.Crossref, Google Scholar
• West PM, Broniarczyk SM (1998) Integrating multiple opinions: The role of aspiration level on consumer response to critic consensus. J. Consumer Res. 25(1):38–51.Google Scholar
• Windschitl PD, Weber EU (1999) The interpretation of “likely” depends on the context, but “70%” is 70%–right? The influence of associative processes on perceived certainty. J. Experiment. Psych. Learn, Memory Cognition 25(6):1514–1533.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Windschitl PD, Wells GL (1996) Measuring psychological uncertainty: Verbal vs. numeric methods. J. Experiment. Psych. Appl. 2(4):343–364.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Windschitl PD, Wells GL (1998) The alternative-outcomes effect. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 75(6):1411–1423.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yaniv I (2004) The benefit of additional opinions. Current Directions Psych. Sci. 13(2):75–78.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yaniv I, Milyavsky M (2007) Using advice from multiple sources to revise and improve judgments. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 103(1):104–120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zimmer AC (1983) Verbal vs. numerical processing of subjective probabilities. Adv. Psych. 16(1983):159–182.Crossref, Google Scholar