Judgmental Bootstrapping: Inferring Experts’ Rules for Forecasting

  • J. Scott Armstrong
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 30)

Abstract

Judgmental bootstrapping is a type of expert system. It translates an expert’s rules into a quantitative model by regressing the expert’s forecasts against the information that he used. Bootstrapping models apply an expert’s rules consistently, and many studies have shown that decisions and predictions from bootstrapping models are similar to those from the experts. Three studies showed that bootstrapping improved the quality of production decisions in companies. To date, research on forecasting with judgmental bootstrapping has been restricted primarily to cross-sectional data, not time-series data. Studies from psychology, education, personnel, marketing, and finance showed that bootstrapping forecasts were more accurate than forecasts made by experts using unaided judgment. They were more accurate for eight of eleven comparisons, less accurate in one, and there were two ties. The gains in accuracy were generally substantial. Bootstrapping can be useful when historical data on the variable to be forecast are lacking or of poor quality; otherwise, econometric models should be used. Bootstrapping is most appropriate for complex situations, where judgments are unreliable, and where experts’ judgments have some validity. When many forecasts are needed, bootstrapping is cost-effective. If experts differ greatly in expertise, bootstrapping can draw upon the forecasts made by the best experts. Bootstrapping aids learning; it can help to identify biases in the way experts make predictions, and it can reveal how the best experts make predictions. Finally, judgmental bootstrapping offers the possibility of conducting “experiments” when the historical data for causal variables have not varied over time. Thus, it can serve as a supplement for econometric models.

Keywords

Conjoint analysis expert systems protocols regression reliability 

References

  1. Abdel-Khalik, A. R. and K. M. El-Sheshai (1980), “Information choice and utilization in an experiment on default prediction,” Journal of Accounting Research, 18, 325–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, P. G. and R. Fildes (2001), “Econometric forecasting,” in J. S. Armstrong (ed.) Principles of Forecasting. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Arkes, H. R., R. M. Dawes and C. Christensen (1986), “Factors influencing the use of a decision rule in a probabilistic task,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armstrong, J. S. (1985), Long-Range Forecasting: From Crystal Ball to Computer (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley. Full text at hops.wharton.upenn.edu/forecast.Google Scholar
  5. Armstrong, J. S. (1997), “Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation,” Science and Engineering Ethics, 3, 63–84. Full text at hops.wharton.upenn.edu/forecast.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Armstrong, J. S., M. Adya and F. Collopy (2001), “Rule-based forecasting: Using judgment in time-series extrapolation,” in J. S. Armstrong (ed.) Principles of Forecasting. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Armstrong, J. S. and A. Shapiro (1974), “Analyzing quantitative models,” Journal ofMarketing, 38, 61–66. Full text at hops.wharton.upenn.edu/forecast.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ashton, A. H. (1985), “Does consensus imply accuracy in accounting studies of decision making” Accounting Review, 60, 173–185.Google Scholar
  9. Ashton, A. H., R. H. Ashton and M. N. Davis (1994), “White-collar robotics: Levering managerial decision making,” California Management Review, 37, 83–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowman, E. H. (1963), “Consistency and optimality in managerial decision making,” Management Science, 9, 310–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Camerer, C. (1981), “General conditions for the success of bootstrapping models,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27, 411–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Christal, R. E. (1968), “Selecting a harem and other applications of the policy-capturing model,” Journal of Experimental Education, 36 (Summer), 35–41.Google Scholar
  13. Collopy, F., M. Adya and J. S. Armstrong (2001), “Expert systems for forecasting,” in J. S. Armstrong (ed.) Principles of Forecasting. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Cook, R. L. and T. R. Stewart (1975), “A comparison of seven methods for obtaining subjective descriptions of judgmental policy,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dawes, R. M. (1971), “A case study of graduate admissions: Application of three principles of human decision making,” American Psychologist, 26, 180–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dawes, R. M. (1979), “The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making,” American Psychologist, 34, 571–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dawes, R. M. and B. Corrigan (1974), “Linear models in decision making,” Psychological Bulletin, 81, 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DeDombal, F. T. (1984), “Clinical decision making and the computer: Consultant, expert, or just another test” British Journal of Health Care Computing, 1, 7–12.Google Scholar
  19. DeVaul, R. A. et al. (1987), “Medical school performance of initially rejected students,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 257 (Jan 2), 47–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Diehl, E. and J. D. Sterman (1995), “Effects of feedback complexity on dynamic decision making,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 198–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dougherty, T. W., R. J. Ebert and J. C. Callender (1986), “Policy capturing in the employment interview,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ebert, R. J. and T. E. Kruse (1978), “Bootstrapping the security analyst,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 110–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Einhorn, H. J., D. N. Kleinmuntz and B. Kleinmuntz (1979), “Linear regression and process-tracing models of judgment,” Psychological Review, 86, 465–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ganzach, Y., A. N. Kluger and N. Klayman (2000), “Making decisions from an interview: Expert measurement and mechanical combination,” Personnel Psychology, 53, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goldberg, L. R. (1968), “Simple models or simple processes? Some research on clinical judgments,” American Psychologist, 23, 483–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goldberg, L. R. (1970), “Man vs. model of man: A rationale, plus some evidence, for a method of improving on clinical inferences,” Psychological Bulletin, 73, 422–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goldberg, L. R. (1971), “Five models of clinical judgment: An empirical comparison between linear and nonlinear representations of the human inference process,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 458–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goldberg, L. R. (1976), “Man vs. model of man: Just how conflicting is that evidence?” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grove, W. M. and P. E. Meehl (1996), “Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy,” Psychology, Public Policy,and Law, 2, 293–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hamm, R. H. (1991), “Accuracy of alternative methods for describing expert’s knowledge of multiple influence domains,” Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 29, 553–556.Google Scholar
  31. Heeler, R. M., M. J. Kearney and B. J. Mehaffey (1973), “Modeling supermarket product selection,” Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 34–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hogarth, R. M. (1978), “A note on aggregating opinions,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 40–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hughes, H. D. (1917), “An interesting seed corn experiment,” The Iowa Agriculturist, 17, 424–425,428.Google Scholar
  34. Johnson, E. (1988), “Expertise and decision under uncertainty: Performance and process,” in M. Chi, R. Glaser and M. Farr, (eds.), The Nature of Expertise. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  35. Kleinmuntz, B. (1990), “Why we still use our heads instead of formulas: Toward an integrative approach,” Psychological Bulletin, 107, 296–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kunreuther, H. (1969), “Extensions of Bowman’s theory on managerial decision-making,” Management Science, 15, 415–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Libby, R. (1976), “Man versus model of man: The need for a non-linear model,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Libby, R. and R. K. Blashfield (1978), “Performance of a composite as a function of the number of judges,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Martorelli, W.P. (1981), “Cowboy DP scouting avoids personnel fumbles,” Information Systems News, (November 16).Google Scholar
  40. McClain, J. O. (1972), “Decision modeling in case selection for medical utilization review,” Management Science, 18, B706 - B717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Milstein, R. M. et al. (1981), “Admissions decisions and performance during medical school,” Journal of Medical Education, 56, 77–82Google Scholar
  42. Milstein, R. M. et al. (1980), “Prediction of interview ratings in a medical school admission process, Journal of Medical Education, 55, 451–453.Google Scholar
  43. Moskowitz, H. (1974), “Regression models of behavior for managerial decision making,” Omega, 2, 677–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moskowitz, H. and J. G. Miller (1972), “Man, models of man or mathematical models for managerial decision making” Proceedings of the American Institute for Decision Sciences. New Orleans, pp. 849–856.Google Scholar
  45. Moskowitz, H., D. L. Weiss, K. K. Cheng and D. J. Reibstein (1982) “Robustness of linear models in dynamic multivariate predictions,” Omega, 10, 647–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roebber, P. J. and L. F. Bosart (1996), “The contributions of education and experience to forecast skill,” Weather and Forecasting, 11, 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Roose, J. E. and M. E. Doherty (1976), “Judgment theory applied to the selection of life insurance salesmen,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schmitt, N. (1978), “Comparison of subjective and objective weighting strategies in changing task situations,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 171–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schneidman, E. S. (1971), “Perturbation and lethality as precursors of suicide in a gifted group,” Life-threatening Behavior, 1, 23–45.Google Scholar
  50. Simester, D. and R. Brodie (1993), “Forecasting criminal sentencing decisions,” International Journal of Forecasting, 9, 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Slovic, P., D. Fleissner and W. S. Bauman (1972), “Analyzing the use of information in investment decision making: A methodological proposal,” Journal of Business, 45, 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stewart, T. R. (2001), “Improving reliability of judgmental forecasts,” in J. S. Armstrong (ed.) Principles of Forecasting. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  53. Taylor, F. W. (1911), Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  54. Wallace, H. A. (1923), “What is in the corn judge’s mind?” Journal of the American Society of Agronomy, 15 (7), 300–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Werner, P. D., T. L. Rose, J. A. Yesavage and K. Seeman (1984), “Psychiatrists’ judgments of dangerousness in patients on an acute care unit,” American Journal of Psychiatry, 141, No. 2, 263–266.Google Scholar
  56. Wiggins, N. and P. J. Hoffman (1968), “Three models of clinical judgment,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 73, 70–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wiggins, N. and E. Kohen (1971), “Man vs. model of man revisited: The forecasting of graduate school success,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 100–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wittink, D. R. and T. Bergestuen (2001), “Forecasting with conjoint analysis,” in J. S. Arm- strong (ed.) Principles of Forecasting. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  59. Yntema, D. B. and W. S. Torgerson (1961), “Man-computer cooperation in decisions requiring common sense,” IRE Transactions of the Professional Group on Human Factors in Electronic. Reprinted in W. Edwards and A. Tversky (eds.) (1967), Decision Making. Baltimore: Penguin Books, pp. 300–314.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Scott Armstrong
    • 1
  1. 1.The Wharton SchoolUniversity of PennsylvaniaUSA

Personalised recommendations