Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Warum erfolgreiche Prognosen einfach und unsicher sind

Von der Wahl des richtigen Werkzeugs für Wähler und die Wahlforschung

  • Forum
  • Published:
Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2

Notes

  1. Wikiquote: Leonid Brezhnev. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/ Leonid Brezhnev#Misattributed (Zugriff am 31.07.2017).

  2. Natürlich liegt es in der Natur von Wahlen, dass die Aussagekraft von und das Interesse an Wahlprognosen mit zeitlicher Nähe der Wahlentscheidung zunehmen. Auch üben Umfragen am Wahltag eine wichtige Kontrollfunktion aus.

Literatur

  • Allensbach. 2015. Zwischen Sicherheitsbedürfnis und Risikobereitschaft (Bericht). Radolfzell: Allensbach Institut.

  • Bauer, Thomas, Gerd Gigerenzer, und Walter Krämer. 2014. Warum dick nicht doof macht und Genmais nicht tötet: Über Risiken und Nebenwirkungen der Unstatistik. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenke, Karl, und Alexander S. Kritikos. 2017. Wählerstruktur im Wandel. DIW Wochenbericht 84(29):595–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaissmaier, Wolfgang, und Gerd Gigerenzer. 2012. 9/11, Act II: A fine-grained analysis of regional variations in traffic fatalities in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. Psychological Science 23(12):1449–1454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaissmaier, Wolfgang, und Julian N. Marewski. 2011. Forecasting elections with mere recognition from small, lousy samples: A comparison of collective recognition, wisdom of crowds, and representative polls. Judgment and Decision Making 6(1):73–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaissmaier, Wolfgang, und Hansjörg Neth. 2016. Die Intelligenz einfacher Entscheidungsregeln in einer ungewissen Welt. Controller Magazin 41(2):19–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geman, Stuart, Elie Bienenstock, und René Doursat. 1992. Neural networks and the bias/variance dilemma. Neural Computation 4(1):1–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, Gerd. 2013. Risiko: Wie man die richtigen Entscheidungen trifft. München: Bertelsmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, Gerd, und Wolfgang Gaissmaier. 2011. Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology 62(1):451–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, Gerd, Wolfgang Gaissmaier, Elke Kurz-Milcke, Lisa Schwartz, und Steven Woloshin. 2007. Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 8(2):53–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, Gerd, Ralph Hertwig, und Thorsten Pachur (Hrsg.). 2011. Heuristics: The foundations of adaptive behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, Gerd, und Laura Martignon. 2015. Risikokompetenz in der Schule lernen. In Lernen und Lernstörungen. Bern: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, Gerd, Jutta Mata, und Ronald Frank. 2009. Public knowledge of benefits of breast and prostate cancer screening in Europe. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 101(17):1216–1220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, Gerd, Zeno Swijtink, Lorraine J. Daston, Theodore Porter, Lorenz Kruger, und John Beatty. 1990. The empire of chance: how probability changed science and everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, Gerd, Peter M. Todd, und ABC Research Group. 1999. Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, Daniel G., und Gerd Gigerenzer. 2009. Fast and frugal forecasting. International Journal of Forecasting 25(4):760–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gøtzsche, Peter C., und Karsten J. Jørgensen. 2013. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. The Cochrane Library 2013:CD1877.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graefe, Andreas, und J. Scott Armstrong. 2012. Predicting elections from the most important issue: a test of the take-the-best heuristic. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 25(1):41–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, Robert M., Floyd J. Fowler Jr, Mick P. Couper, James M. Lepkowski, Eleanor Singer, und Roger Tourangeau. 2011. Survey methodology. Bd. 561. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, Ian. 1990. The taming of chance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ipsos. 2017. Die Sorgen der Deutschen im Wahljahr 2017 (Bericht). Hamburg: Ipsos Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, Robert P., und Daniel Cox. 2012. Race, class, and culture survey 2012 (Bericht und Daten). University Park, PA: Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung, Matthias. 2017. Stopp dem Demoskopenbashing! Warum Umfrageergebnisse doch nicht so schlecht sind. Die Politische Meinung 543:40–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, Daniel. 2012. Schnelles Denken, langsames Denken. München: Siedler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, Frank H. 1921. Risk, uncertainty and profit. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtman, Allan J. 2008. The keys to the White House: An index forecast for 2008. International Journal of Forecasting 24(2):301–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marewski, Julian N., Wolfgang Gaissmaier, Lael J. Schooler, Daniel G. Goldstein, und Gerd Gigerenzer. 2009. Do voters use episodic knowledge to rely on recognition? In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Hrsg. Niels Taatgen, und Heddrik van Rijn, 2232–2237. Austin: Cognitive Science Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marewski, Julian N., Rüdiger F. Pohl, und Oliver Vitouch. 2010. Recognition-based judgments and decisions: Introduction to the special issue (Vol. 1). Judgment and Decision Making 5(4):207–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marewski, Julian N., Rüdiger F. Pohl, und Oliver Vitouch. 2011. Recognition-based judgments and decisions: Introduction to the special issue (Vol. 2). Judgment and Decision Making 6(1):1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martignon, Laura, Konstantinos V. Katsikopoulos, und Jan K. Woike. 2008. Categorization with limited resources: A family of simple heuristics. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 52(6):352–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maslow, Abraham H. 1966. The psychology of science. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie, Craig R.M. 2003. Rational models as theories – not standards-of behavior. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(9):403–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moussaïd, Mehdi, Henry Brighton, und Wolfgang Gaissmaier. 2015. The amplification of risk in experimental diffusion chains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(18):5631–5636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moussaïd, Mehdi, Juliane E. Kämmer, Pantelis P. Analytis, und Hansjörg Neth. 2013. Social influence and the collective dynamics of opinion formation. PloS One 8(11):e78433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neth, Hansjörg. 2014. Warum Controller auf Heuristiken setzen sollten. Controlling & Management Review 58(3):22–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neth, Hansjörg, und Gerd Gigerenzer. 2015. Heuristics: Tools for an uncertain world. In Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences, Hrsg. R. Scott, und S. Kosslyn. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neth, Hansjörg, Björn Meder, Amit Kothiyal, und Gerd Gigerenzer. 2014. Homo heuristicus in the financial world: From risk management to managing uncertainty. Journal of Risk Management in Financial Institutions 7(2):134–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neth, Hansjörg, Chris R. Sims, und Wayne D. Gray. 2016. Rational task analysis: A methodology to benchmark bounded rationality. Minds and Machines 26(1–2):125–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, Nathaniel D., Hansjörg Neth, Jan K. Woike, und Wolfgang Gaissmaier. 2017. FFTrees: A toolbox to create, visualize, and evaluate fast-and-frugal decision trees. Judgment and Decision Making 12(4):344–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rees, Nigel. 2006. Brewer’s famous quotations: 5000 quotations and the stories behind them. London: Cassell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, Bertrand. 1950. Unpopular essays. (Chapter 2: Philosophy for Laymen). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, Leonard J. 1954. The foundations of statistics. New York, NY: Dover Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schröder, Fritz H., Jonas Hugosson, et al, 2014. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: Results of the European randomised study of screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. The Lancet 384(9959):2027–2035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanteau, James. 1992. How much information does an expert use? Is it relevant? Acta Psychologica 81(1):75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherbino, Jonathan, Kelly Dore, Timothy Wood, Meredith Young, Wolfgang Gaissmaier, Sharyn Krueger, und Geoffrey Norman. 2012. The relation between processing speed and diagnostic errors. Academic Medicine 87(6):785–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silver, Nate. 2017. The real story of 2016. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-real-story-of-2016. Zugegriffen: 31. Juli 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soyer, Emre, und Robin M. Hogarth. 2012. The illusion of predictability: How regression statistics mislead experts. International Journal of Forecasting 28(3):695–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, Peter W. (2016). Professor who predicted 30 years of presidential elections correctly called a Trump win in September. The Washington Post (11. Sept. 2016).

  • Surowiecki, James. 2004. The wisdom of crowds. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todd, Peter M., Gerd Gigerenzer, und ABC Research Group. 2012. Ecological rationality: Intelligence in the world. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, Amos, und Daniel Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voltaire, alias François-Marie Arouet. 1919. Letter to Frederick William, Prince of Prussia (28.11. 1770). In Voltaire in his letters, Hrsg. S.G. Tallentyre. New York: Putnam’s Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegwarth, Odette, Lisa M. Schwartz, Steven Woloshin, Wolfgang Gaissmaier, und Gerd Gigerenzer. 2012. Do physicians understand cancer screening statistics? Annals of Internal Medicine 156(5):340–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sozialpsychologie und Entscheidungsforschung, Fachbereich Psychologie, Universität Konstanz, Postfach 43, 78457, Konstanz, Deutschland

    Hansjörg Neth &  Wolfgang Gaissmaier

Authors
  1. Hansjörg Neth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wolfgang Gaissmaier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hansjörg Neth.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Neth, H., Gaissmaier, W. Warum erfolgreiche Prognosen einfach und unsicher sind. Z Politikwiss 27, 205–220 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41358-017-0100-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41358-017-0100-5

Search

Navigation