arXiv preprint ·
Crowds Believe in You: Online Prediction Markets Overestimate How Often People Achieve Their Own Goals
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
People increasingly share personal goals online and invite others to forecast them. Research on the planning fallacy finds that observers predict a person's behavior less optimistically than the person does, and prediction markets aggregate such judgments, harnessing the wisdom of crowds. We study 6,150 prediction markets on Manifold in which 1,660 users asked about their own futures ("Will I ...?"), reconstruct every order and execution, and compare these self-markets with markets about external events. Self-markets resolved YES 4.4 percentage points less often than their final prices implied, whereas external markets were nearly calibrated (0.9 points); the difference was 2.2 points at the same price level and 1.9 points within creators who made both kinds of market. Absent when markets opened, the overstatement emerged within a day of trading, even where the person never traded, and peaked in the week before close. In a market's first day, observers moved external-market prices down toward the base rate, but moved self-market prices 3.6 points further toward YES, except in markets naming an outcome the person would not want, which were not overpriced. The correction came late and largely from the person, whose orders supplied 38% of the eventual movement toward the outcome in self-markets, against 9% in external markets. Because self-market prices mainly failed to separate successes from failures, a recalibration learned from earlier markets improved later forecasts by only 1.5%. Crowds believe in the futures people pose for themselves, and the information that would correct them lies with the person.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Human-Computer Interaction
Designing Behavioral Profiles for Language Model Simulation of Out-of-Distribution Human Behavior
Practice Makes Perfect: Tacit Knowledge, Generative AI, and Returns to Schooling and Experience
How Green Is Your Manifesto? Scoring Environmental Positions in the 2024 EU Elections with an LLM Panel
A Stationary Mean-Field Model for Carbon Market Stability Reserve
Ask More, Hear Less: How a Review Prompt Changes What Online Ratings Show
Get the few papers worth your time in Human-Computer Interaction every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.