Deliberation in Guesstimation

IF 2.4 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Vildan Salikutluk, Frank Jäkel
{"title":"Deliberation in Guesstimation","authors":"Vildan Salikutluk,&nbsp;Frank Jäkel","doi":"10.1111/cogs.70090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In many real-world settings, people often have to make judgments with incomplete information. Estimating unknown quantities without using precise quantitative modeling and data is called guesstimation, which is often needed in forecasting settings. Furthermore, research in education found that solving guesstimation problems builds general problem-solving skills. In this paper, we present an empirical investigation on how people solve guesstimation problems. We study their problem-solving behavior with think-aloud methods, and we identify solution strategies that are frequently used. In a two-response paradigm, we first ask for gut-feeling answers to guesstimation questions and then allow deliberation before a second answer is given. Comparing the quality of these two answers reveals that deliberation improves the answer quality significantly. In a second experiment, we additionally elicit participants' confidence about their deliberated answers by asking for an entire distribution instead of just a point estimate. We find that participants are generally overconfident in their answers. We discuss guesstimation tasks as suitable test-beds for studying human deliberative judgments in general and in the more specific context of improving forecasting through appropriate artificial intelligence tools.</p>","PeriodicalId":48349,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Science","volume":"49 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cogs.70090","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.70090","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In many real-world settings, people often have to make judgments with incomplete information. Estimating unknown quantities without using precise quantitative modeling and data is called guesstimation, which is often needed in forecasting settings. Furthermore, research in education found that solving guesstimation problems builds general problem-solving skills. In this paper, we present an empirical investigation on how people solve guesstimation problems. We study their problem-solving behavior with think-aloud methods, and we identify solution strategies that are frequently used. In a two-response paradigm, we first ask for gut-feeling answers to guesstimation questions and then allow deliberation before a second answer is given. Comparing the quality of these two answers reveals that deliberation improves the answer quality significantly. In a second experiment, we additionally elicit participants' confidence about their deliberated answers by asking for an entire distribution instead of just a point estimate. We find that participants are generally overconfident in their answers. We discuss guesstimation tasks as suitable test-beds for studying human deliberative judgments in general and in the more specific context of improving forecasting through appropriate artificial intelligence tools.

Abstract Image

猜测中的深思熟虑
在许多现实世界中,人们经常不得不在信息不完整的情况下做出判断。在不使用精确的定量建模和数据的情况下估计未知量被称为猜测,这在预测设置中经常需要。此外,教育研究发现,解决猜测问题可以培养解决问题的一般能力。在本文中,我们对人们如何解决猜测问题进行了实证调查。我们用大声思考的方法研究他们解决问题的行为,并确定经常使用的解决方案策略。在双反应范式中,我们首先要求猜测问题的直觉答案,然后在给出第二个答案之前允许深思熟虑。比较这两种答案的质量可以发现,深思熟虑显著提高了答案的质量。在第二个实验中,我们还要求参与者给出一个完整的分布,而不仅仅是一个点的估计值,从而让他们对自己深思熟虑的答案更有信心。我们发现,参与者通常对自己的答案过于自信。我们讨论了猜测任务作为研究人类审慎判断的合适测试平台,以及在通过适当的人工智能工具改进预测的更具体背景下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Science PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.00%
发文量
139
期刊介绍: Cognitive Science publishes articles in all areas of cognitive science, covering such topics as knowledge representation, inference, memory processes, learning, problem solving, planning, perception, natural language understanding, connectionism, brain theory, motor control, intentional systems, and other areas of interdisciplinary concern. Highest priority is given to research reports that are specifically written for a multidisciplinary audience. The audience is primarily researchers in cognitive science and its associated fields, including anthropologists, education researchers, psychologists, philosophers, linguists, computer scientists, neuroscientists, and roboticists.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信