Abstract
Abstract
We report the results of a forecasting experiment about a randomized controlled trial that was conducted in the field. The experiment asks Ph.D. students, faculty, and policy practitioners to forecast (1) compliance rates for the RCT and (2) treatment effects of the intervention. The forecasting experiment randomizes the order of questions about compliance and treatment effects and the provision of information that a pilot experiment had been conducted which produced null results. Forecasters were excessively optimistic about treatment effects and unresponsive to item order as well as to information about a pilot. Those who declare themselves expert in the area relevant to the intervention are particularly resistant to new information that the treatment is ineffective. We interpret our results as suggesting that we should exercise caution when undertaking expert forecasting, since experts may have unrealistic expectations and may be inflexible in altering these even when provided new information.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Sociology and Political Science
Reference16 articles.
1. CEGA, (Center for Effective Global Action). 2021. “Emerging Benefits and Insights from a Year of Forecasting on the Social Science Prediction Platform.” https://medium.com/center-for-effective-global-action/emerging-benefits-and-insights-from-a-year-of-forecasting-on-the-social-science-prediction-platform-1f554e850a57
2. Exporting democratic practices: Evidence from a village governance intervention in Eastern Congo
3. Skill versus Voice in Local Development
4. Transparency, Reproducibility, and the Credibility of Economics Research
5. Forecasting the Results of Experiments: Piloting an Elicitation Strategy
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献