The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Judgemental adjustment of initial forecasts: Its effectiveness and biases
Abstract
Managers are often required to integrate their own forecasts with statistical forecasts. The studies reported in this paper examine the efficacy of allowing people to adjust their own forecasts in the light of statistical forecasts that are provided to them. Three experimental studies varied the reliability of the statistical forecasts and examined the performance of people over time. Issues of the form of the feedback and the use of decision support were also examined. The results unequivocally suggest that the effectiveness of judgemental adjustment depended on the statistical model's reliability and seasonally of time series. However, people had considerable difficulty placing less weight on their own forecasts (compared to the statistical forecasts) and this behaviour became more pronounced over time. Even provision of decision support did not improve performance at the task.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810
“Clinical versus Actuarial Judgment.”
Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.2648573 · Cited by 2,298
MANOVA method for analyzing repeated measures designs: An extensive primer.
O'Brien, R. G., & Kaiser, M. K. (1985) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.97.2.316 · Cited by 1,148
Causes and effects of my disturbing little book
Meehl, P. E. (1986) · Journal of Personality Assessment · doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5003_6 · Cited by 410
Cited by
Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2018) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2016.2643 · Cited by 1,230
Bonaccio, S., & Dalal, R. S. (2006) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.07.001 · Cited by 1,011
Advice taking in decision making: egocentric discounting and reputation formation
Yaniv, I., & Kleinberger, E. (2000) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2909 · Cited by 701
Receiving other people’s advice: Influence and benefit
Yaniv, I. (2004) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2003.08.002 · Cited by 652
The Principles and Limits of Algorithm-in-the-Loop Decision Making
Green, B., & Chen, Y. (2019) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3359152 · Cited by 392
Disparate Interactions: An Algorithm-in-the-Loop Analysis of Fairness in Risk Assessments
Green, B., & Chen, Y. (2019) · Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287563 · Cited by 275
The Flaws of Policies Requiring Human Oversight of Government Algorithms
Green, B. (2021) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3921216 · Cited by 259
A Case for Humans-in-the-Loop: Decisions in the Presence of Erroneous Algorithmic Scores
De-Arteaga, M., Fogliato, R., & Chouldechova, A. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376638 · Cited by 221
The flaws of policies requiring human oversight of government algorithms
Green, B. (2022) · Computer Law & Security Review · doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2022.105681 · Cited by 263
Social information use and social information waste
Morin, O., Jacquet, P. O., Vaesen, K., & Acerbi, A. (2021) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B · doi:10.1098/rstb.2020.0052 · Cited by 80
Do ‘big losses’ in judgmental adjustments to statistical forecasts affect experts’ behaviour?
Petropoulos, F., Fildes, R., & Goodwin, P. (2016) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2015.06.002 · Cited by 71
Green, B., & Chen, Y. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3479562 · Cited by 69
Antecedents and effects of trust in forecasting advice
Goodwin, P., Sinan Gönül, M., & Önkal, D. (2013) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2012.08.001 · Cited by 46
Using judgment to select and adjust forecasts from statistical models
De Baets, S., & Harvey, N. (2020) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2020.01.028 · Cited by 44
Why Does Advice Discounting Occur? The Combined Roles of Confidence and Trust
Wang, X., & Du, X. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02381 · Cited by 31
Quantifying machine influence over human forecasters
Abeliuk, A., Benjamin, D. M., Morstatter, F., & Galstyan, A. (2020) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-72690-4 · Cited by 18
“The reasons for human preference are debatable and may include an egocentric bias 36 , anchoring on pre-existing beliefs 37 , and better access to self or human justifications 38 .”
BackgroundSocial Influence under uncertainty in interaction with peers, robots and computers
Zonca, J., Folsø, A., & Sciutti, A. (2023) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-022-00959-x · Cited by 18
Effect of Shared Information on Trust and Reliance in a Demand Forecasting Task
Gao, J., & Lee, J. D. (2006) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/154193120605000302 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Lim, J. S., & O'Connor, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1995-09
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 149-168
- ISSN
- 0894-3257 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0771
- OpenAlex
- W2109141422
- Cited by
- 171
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 2.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
