The over-optimism among experts in assessment and foresight

Abstract

It is still disputed whether foresight exercises should be based on top-expert assessments or on a broader base of less specialised experts, and whether the self-rating of experts is an acceptable method. Using the German 1993 and the Austrian 1998 Technology Delphis, this study addresses both questions: Self-rating is in fact an appropriate method for selecting experts. But the assessment of self-rated top-experts tend to suffer from an optimism bias, due to the experts' involvement and their underestimation of realisation and diffusion problems. The degree of optimism is positively correlated with the degree of self-rated knowledge, and it is more pronounced for the least pioneering and for organisational innovations. Experts with top self-ratings working in business have a stronger optimism bias than those working in academia or in the administration. Consistent with the insider hypothesis, they are most optimistic with regard to realisation, innovativeness, and potential leadership in economic exploitation. Given the optimism bias, foresight exercises should base their panels on a fair mixture of experts of different grades, with different types of knowledge and affiliation, and not only on top specialists of the respective field. Delphi-type exercises, therefore, offer an advantage relative to forum groups or small panels of specialists.

The Future of Logistics in Emerging Markets—Fuzzy Clustering Scenarios Grounded in Institutional and Factor‐Market Rivalry Theory

“…In the past, various researchers have argued that human judgment of probabilities of occurrence is frequently subject to numerous cognitive biases (Greatorex & Dexter, 2000;Sackman, 1974;Tichy, 2004). Among these biases, the desirability bias is of utmost importance (Krizan & Windschitl, 2007;Rowe & Wright, 1996).…”

Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis

“…(81) It is also called "wishful thinking" (82) or "optimism bias." (83) Evidence: Prediction of outcomes in games of chance; (81) impact on estimates of probabilities of future outcomes in expert foresight; (84,85) estimates of costs (28) and duration (14) in projects; as well as some possible effect in sport tournaments. (86) Tasks: UM2, UM3, CM3, CM4…”

“…This bias occurs when there is a desire to be cautious, prudent, or conservative in estimates that may be related to harmful consequences. (87,88) Evidence: Most evidence related to probabilities of life events; (87,88) but also in long-term estimations of future events in expert foresight (84) and estimates of risks and benefits about risky technologies; (89) some risk assessments that are intentionally biased toward "conservative" estimates in each step (as discussed in the recent report by the Institute of Medicine (90) ). Tasks: UM2, UM3, CM3, CM4…”

Going Against the Grain of Optimism: Flour Fortification in Pakistan

“…Clark, Robert and Hampton 2016), and is thought to be stronger among specialised experts in a given field compared with individuals with broader areas of expertise (Tichy 2004). 2 In fact, as Bishai and Nalubola (2002) show, following the success of salt iodisation in eliminating goitre in the US Midwest in the 1920s, the championing of other forms of food fortification (notably that of wheat flour and bread with iron) was based on technocratic optimism rather than specific evidence of impact.…”