Are markets more accurate than polls? The surprising informational value of “just asking”
Are markets more accurate than polls? The surprising informational value of “just asking”
复制标题
市场比民意调查更准确吗？“只是询问”的信息价值令人惊讶吗？
DOI：
10.1017/s1930297500003375
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
B. Mellers
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Dana;P. Atanasov;P. Tetlock;B. Mellers
心理学家通常使用自我报告来衡量信念和偏好，而经济学家更有可能从行为中推断出来。预测市场似乎是经济学方法的胜利，它比民意调查或专家对各种事件的概率估计更准确，而所有这些都没有要求自我报告的信念。我们使用受试者内设计对预测市场与简单自我报告的日期进行了最直接的比较。我们的参与者根据地缘政治事件的可能性进行交易。每次他们进行交易时，他们首先必须报告他们认为该事件将在0-100范围内发生。当先前验证的聚合算法应用于自我报告的信念时，它们在预测广泛的地缘政治事件方面至少与预测市场价格一样准确。此外，各种方法的组合比预测市场价格更准确，这表明自我报告包含市场没有有效汇总的信息。将行为科学和社会科学的测量技术结合起来，可能会带来比以前想象的更大的好处。
Psychologists typically measure beliefs and preferences using self-reports, whereas economists are much more likely to infer them from behavior. Prediction markets appear to be a victory for the economic approach, having yielded more accurate probability estimates than opinion polls or experts for a wide variety of events, all without ever asking for self-reported beliefs. We conduct the most direct comparison to date of prediction markets to simple self-reports using a within-subject design. Our participants traded on the likelihood of geopolitical events. Each time they placed a trade, they first had to report their belief that the event would occur on a 0–100 scale. When previously validated aggregation algorithms were applied to self-reported beliefs, they were at least as accurate as prediction-market prices in predicting a wide range of geopolitical events. Furthermore, the combination of approaches was significantly more accurate than prediction-market prices alone, indicating that self-reports contained information that the market did not efficiently aggregate. Combining measurement techniques across behavioral and social sciences may have greater benefits than previously thought.