Cited by 199Labor market dynamics and wage inequalitySurvey Methodology and NonresponseDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Earnings Expectations, Revisions, and Realizations

Dominitz, Jeff·1998·Review of Economics and Statistics

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

Crossref · 10.1162/003465398557618

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. 10.2307/2118430 · DOI
  2. Caskey John, 1985, American Economic Review, 75, 768
  3. 10.1086/268731 · DOI
  4. 10.1086/297795 · DOI
  5. 10.2307/2965550 · DOI
  6. 10.2307/1885092 · DOI
  7. 10.2307/1885388 · DOI
  8. 10.1086/261987 · DOI
  9. 10.2307/146285 · DOI
  10. Jacobson Louis S, 1993, American Economic Review, 83, 685
  11. 10.2307/2282779 · DOI
  12. Keane Michael, 1990, American Economic Review, 80, 714
  13. 10.2307/1912513 · DOI
  14. 10.2307/1912111 · DOI
  15. 10.1086/298246 · DOI
  16. Lovell Michael, 1986, American Economic Review, 76, 110
  17. 10.2307/2289590 · DOI
  18. 10.2307/1912274 · DOI
  19. Tobin James, 1959, this REVIEW, 41, 1
  20. 10.2307/1391715 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Dominitz, J.
Affiliations
California Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Dominitz, Jeff
Venue
Review of Economics and Statistics
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