
AbstractIn many real‐world settings, people often have to make judgments with incomplete information. Estimating unknown quantities without using precise quantitative modeling and data is called guesstimation, which is often needed in forecasting settings. Furthermore, research in education found that solving guesstimation problems builds general problem‐solving skills. In this paper, we present an empirical investigation on how people solve guesstimation problems. We study their problem‐solving behavior with think‐aloud methods, and we identify solution strategies that are frequently used. In a two‐response paradigm, we first ask for gut‐feeling answers to guesstimation questions and then allow deliberation before a second answer is given. Comparing the quality of these two answers reveals that deliberation improves the answer quality significantly. In a second experiment, we additionally elicit participants' confidence about their deliberated answers by asking for an entire distribution instead of just a point estimate. We find that participants are generally overconfident in their answers. We discuss guesstimation tasks as suitable test‐beds for studying human deliberative judgments in general and in the more specific context of improving forecasting through appropriate artificial intelligence tools.
Male, Adult, Judgment, Young Adult, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Regular Article, Female, Problem Solving
Male, Adult, Judgment, Young Adult, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Regular Article, Female, Problem Solving
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
