In search of good probability assessors: an experimental comparison of elicitation rules for confidence judgments
DOI10.1007/S11238-015-9509-9zbMATH Open1378.91067OpenAlexW1518830282MaRDI QIDQ266507FDOQ266507
Authors: Guillaume Hollard, Sébastien Massoni, Jean-Christophe Vergnaud 
Publication date: 13 April 2016
Published in: Theory and Decision (Search for Journal in Brave)
Full work available at URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-015-9509-9
Recommendations
Applications of statistics to psychology (62P15) Decision theory (91B06) Experimental studies (91A90)
Cites Work
- Strictly Proper Scoring Rules, Prediction, and Estimation
- Title not available (Why is that?)
- Betting on own knowledge: Experimental test of overconfidence
- Comonotonic proper scoring rules to measure ambiguity and subjective beliefs
- Choice-Based Elicitation and Decomposition of Decision Weights for Gains and Losses Under Uncertainty
- A Mechanism for Eliciting Probabilities
- A truth serum for non-Bayesians: correcting proper scoring rules for risk attitudes
- Title not available (Why is that?)
- The binarized scoring rule
- An Experimental Study of Belief Learning Using Elicited Beliefs
- Judgemental Overconfidence, Self-Monitoring, and Trading Performance in an Experimental Financial Market
- Alternative Approaches to the Theory of Choice in Risk-Taking Situations
Cited In (9)
- Signaling probabilities in ambiguity: who reacts to vague news?
- Confidence biases and learning among intuitive Bayesians
- Betting on own knowledge: Experimental test of overconfidence
- Belief formation in a signaling game without common prior: an experiment
- Belief elicitation in experiments: Is there a hedging problem?
- An experimental comparison of induced and elicited beliefs
- Bribing the Self
- Optimal group decision: a matter of confidence calibration
- The uniqueness of local proper scoring rules: the logarithmic family
Uses Software
This page was built for publication: In search of good probability assessors: an experimental comparison of elicitation rules for confidence judgments
Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q266507)
