The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Earnings Expectations, Revisions, and Realizations
Abstract
During the spring and the fall of 1993, respondents to a national household survey were asked to report expectations of spring 1994 weekly earnings. Elicited in the form of subjective probabilities, these data are potentially much more informative than are typical reports of economic expectations. Subjective probability distributions of future weekly earnings are estimated for each respondent, based on his or her reports of a series of subjective probabilities. This paper analyzes the cross-sectional variation in expectations, revisions of expectations between the spring and the fall of 1993, and the relationship between 1993 expectations and the distribution of spring 1994 earnings realizations. Generally positive findings on the validity of the data bode well for the prospects of eliciting expectations in future surveys.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“People tend to overestimate the extent to which they possess desirable attributes, but their true value nevertheless tends to increase in their estimated value, a property necessary for signaling.”
From Talking the talk, not walking the walk: The coevolution of overconfidence and loss aversion (2026) · cites this paper as Dominitz (1998)
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- 10.2307/2118430 · DOI
- Caskey John, 1985, American Economic Review, 75, 768
- 10.1086/268731 · DOI
- 10.1086/297795 · DOI
- 10.2307/2965550 · DOI
- 10.2307/1885092 · DOI
- 10.2307/1885388 · DOI
- 10.1086/261987 · DOI
- 10.2307/146285 · DOI
- Jacobson Louis S, 1993, American Economic Review, 83, 685
- 10.2307/2282779 · DOI
- Keane Michael, 1990, American Economic Review, 80, 714
- 10.2307/1912513 · DOI
- 10.2307/1912111 · DOI
- 10.1086/298246 · DOI
- Lovell Michael, 1986, American Economic Review, 76, 110
- 10.2307/2289590 · DOI
- 10.2307/1912274 · DOI
- Tobin James, 1959, this REVIEW, 41, 1
- 10.2307/1391715 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Talking the talk, not walking the walk: The coevolution of overconfidence and loss aversion
Dawson, C., & de Meza, D. (2026) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000644 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Dominitz, J.
- Affiliations
- California Institute of Technology (US)
- Corresponding author
- Dominitz, Jeff
- ORCID
- Dominitz, Jeff
- Venue
- Review of Economics and Statistics
- Publisher
- MIT Press - Journals
- Published
- 1998-08
- Volume
- 80
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 374-388
- ISSN
- 0034-6535 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-9142
- OpenAlex
- W1999816560
- Cited by
- 199
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 6.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Review of Economics and Statistics (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Keywords
- earnings expectations, subjective probability, subjective probability distributions, household survey data, survey data validity, weekly earnings
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