Factors affecting preferences between judgmental and algorithmic forecasts: Feedback, guidance and labeling effects

IF 6.9 2区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Nigel Harvey , Shari De Baets
{"title":"Factors affecting preferences between judgmental and algorithmic forecasts: Feedback, guidance and labeling effects","authors":"Nigel Harvey ,&nbsp;Shari De Baets","doi":"10.1016/j.ijforecast.2024.08.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Previous research has shown that people prefer algorithmic to judgmental forecasts in the absence of outcome feedback but judgmental to algorithmic forecasts when feedback is provided. However, all this work has used cue-based forecasting tasks. The opposite pattern of results has been reported for time series forecasting tasks. This reversal could have arisen because cue-based forecasting studies have used preference paradigms whereas the time series forecasting studies have employed advice-taking paradigms. In a first experiment, we show that when a preference paradigm is used in time series forecasting, the difference in the conclusions about the effects of feedback in the two types of forecasting disappears. In a second experiment, we show that provision of guidance showing accuracy of algorithmic and judgmental forecasts can eliminate effects of feedback. Two further experiments reveal how choices between algorithmic and judgmental forecasts are influenced by the way in which those forecasts are labeled.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":14061,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Forecasting","volume":"41 2","pages":"Pages 532-553"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Forecasting","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169207024000797","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Previous research has shown that people prefer algorithmic to judgmental forecasts in the absence of outcome feedback but judgmental to algorithmic forecasts when feedback is provided. However, all this work has used cue-based forecasting tasks. The opposite pattern of results has been reported for time series forecasting tasks. This reversal could have arisen because cue-based forecasting studies have used preference paradigms whereas the time series forecasting studies have employed advice-taking paradigms. In a first experiment, we show that when a preference paradigm is used in time series forecasting, the difference in the conclusions about the effects of feedback in the two types of forecasting disappears. In a second experiment, we show that provision of guidance showing accuracy of algorithmic and judgmental forecasts can eliminate effects of feedback. Two further experiments reveal how choices between algorithmic and judgmental forecasts are influenced by the way in which those forecasts are labeled.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
17.10
自引率
11.40%
发文量
189
审稿时长
77 days
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Forecasting is a leading journal in its field that publishes high quality refereed papers. It aims to bridge the gap between theory and practice, making forecasting useful and relevant for decision and policy makers. The journal places strong emphasis on empirical studies, evaluation activities, implementation research, and improving the practice of forecasting. It welcomes various points of view and encourages debate to find solutions to field-related problems. The journal is the official publication of the International Institute of Forecasters (IIF) and is indexed in Sociological Abstracts, Journal of Economic Literature, Statistical Theory and Method Abstracts, INSPEC, Current Contents, UMI Data Courier, RePEc, Academic Journal Guide, CIS, IAOR, and Social Sciences Citation Index.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信