This research analyzes how individual differences affect performance in judgmental time‐series forecasting. Decision makers with the ability to balance intuitive judgment with cognitive deliberation, as measured by the cognitive reflection test, tend to have lower forecast errors. This relationship holds when controlling for intelligence. Furthermore, forecast errors increase for very fast or very slow decisions. We provide evidence that forecast performance can be improved by manipulating decision speed.
BatesD. M.PinheiroJ. C.. 1998. Computational methods for multilevel modeling. Technical Memorandum BL0112140‐980226‐01TM. Bell Labs, Lucent Technologies, Murray Hill, NJ.
3.
BaucellsM.WeberM.WelfensF.. 2011. Reference‐point formation and updating. Manage. Sci.57(3): 506–519.
4.
BolgerF.HarveyN.. 1993. Context‐sensitive heuristics in statistical reasoning. Q. J. Exper. Psychol. A46(1): 779–811.
5.
BolteA.GoschkeT.. 2005. On the speed of intuition: Intuitive judgments of semantic coherence under different response deadlines. Mem. Cognit.33(7): 1248–1255.
6.
BonabeauE.2003. Don't trust your gut. Harv. Bus. Rev.81(5): 116–123.
CantorD. E.MacdonaldJ. R.. 2009. Decision making in the supply chain: The impact of cognitive thinking styles and problem complexity. J. Oper. Manag.27(3): 220–232.
9.
CartwrightD.1941. The relation of decision time to the categories of response. Am. J. Psychiatr.54: 174–196.
10.
CesariniD.JohannessonM.MagnussonP. K. E.WallaceB.. 2011. The behavioral genetics of behavioral anomalies. Manage. Sci.58(1): 21–34.
11.
CokelyE. T.GalesicM.SchulzE.GhazalS.Garcia‐RetameroR.. 2012. Measuring risk literacy: The Berlin Numeracy Test. Judgm. Decis. Making7(1): 25–47.
12.
CokelyE. T.KelleyC. M.. 2009. Cognitive abilities and superior decision making under risk: A protocol analysis and process model evaluation. Judgm. Decis. Making4(1): 20–33.
13.
DaneE.PrattM. G.. 2007. Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making. Acad. Manag. Rev.32(1): 33–54.
14.
DeBondtW.1993. Betting on trends: Intuitive forecasts of financial risk and return. Int. J. Forecast.9: 355–371.
15.
DeVéricourtF.JainK.BeardenJ. N.FilipowiczA.. 2013. Sex, risk and the newsvendor. J. Oper. Manag.31(1–2): 86–93.
16.
DelMisserF.MantylaT.Brune de BruinW.. 2012. Decision making competence, executive functioning and general cognitive abilities. J. Behav. Decis. Making25: 33–351.
17.
DodrillC. B.1983. Long‐term reliability of the Wonderlic Personnel Test. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol.51(2): 316–317.
18.
DodrillC. B.WarnerM. H.. 1988. Further studies of the Wonderlic personnel test as a brief measure of intelligence. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol.56(1): 145–147.
19.
EdlandA.SvensonO.. 1993. Judgment and decision making under time pressure. SvensonO.MauleA. J., eds. Time Pressure and Stress in Human Judgment and Decision Making. Plenum Press, New York, NY, 27–40.
20.
EpsteinS.1994. Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. Am. Psychol.49(8): 709–724.
21.
FinucaneM. L.AlhakamiA.SlovicP.JohnsonS. M.. 2000. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J. Behav. Decis. Making13(1): 1–17.
FrederickS.2005. Cognitive reflection and decision making. J. Econ. Perspect.19(4): 25–42.
24.
GaissmaierW.SchoolerL. J.. 2008. The smart potential behind probability matching. Cognition109: 416–422.
25.
GigerenzerG.GoldsteinD. G.. 1996. Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychol. Rev.103(4): 650–669.
26.
GladwellM.2005. Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking. Little Brown and Company, New York, NY.
27.
GoldsteinD.G.GigerenzerG.. 2009. Fast and frugal forecasting. Int. J. Forecast.25(4): 760–772.
28.
HarveyN.2007. Use of heuristics: Insights from forecasting research. Think. Reason.13(1): 5–24.
29.
KahnemanD.2003. A perspective on judgment and choice. Am. Psychol.58(9): 697–720.
30.
KahnemanD.2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York.
31.
KahnemanD.FrederickS.. 2002. Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. GilovichT.GriffinD. W.KahnemanD., eds. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge University Press, New York, 49–81.
32.
KerenG.SchulY.. 2009. Two is not always better than one: A critical evaluation of two‐system theories. Perspect. Psychol. Sci.4(6): 533–550.
33.
KihlstromJ. F.1987. The cognitive unconscious. Science237(4821): 1445–1452.
34.
KremerM.MoritzB.SiemsenE.. 2011. Demand forecasting behavior: System neglect and change detection. Manage. Sci.57(10): 1287–1843.
35.
KruglanskiA.GigerenzerG.. 2011. Theoretical note: Intuitive and deliberate judgments are based on common principles. Psychol. Rev.118(1): 97–109.
36.
LangleyA.1995. Between “Paralysis by Analysis” and “Extinction by Instinct.” Sloan Manage. Rev.36(3): 63–75.
37.
LawrenceM.GoodwinP.O'ConnorM.OnkalD.. 2006. Judgmental forecasting: A review of progress over the last 25 years. Int. J. Forecast.22: 493–518.
MakridakisS.HibonM.. 2000. The M3‐competition: Results, conclusions and implications. Int. J. Forecast.16(4): 451–476.
40.
MauboussinM. J.2009. Think Twice. Harvard Business Press, Cambridge, MA.
41.
MauleA. J.HockeyG. R. J.BdzolaL.. 2000. Effects of time‐pressure on decision‐making under uncertainty: Changes in affective state and information processing strategy. Acta Psychol.104: 283–301.
42.
MoritzB.HillA.DonohueK.. 2013. Individual differences in the newsvendor problem: Behavior and cognitive reflection. J. Oper. Manag.31(1–2): 72–85.
43.
MoyerR. S.BayerR. H.. 1976. Mental comparison and the symbolic distance effect. Cogn. Psychol.8: 228–246.
44.
O'ConnorM.RemusW.GriggsK.. 1993. Judgmental forecasting in times of change. Int. J. Forecast.9(2): 163–172.
45.
OechsslerJ.RoiderA.SchmitzP. W.. 2009. Cognitive abilities and behavioral biases. J. Econ. Behav. Organ.72(1): 147–152.
46.
OlivaR.WatsonN.. 2009. Managing functional biases in organizational forecasts: A case study of consensus forecasting in supply chain planning. Prod. Oper. Manag.18(2): 138–151.
47.
PayneJ. W.BettmanJ. R.JohnsonE. J.. 1993. The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
48.
PetersE.VästfjällD.SlovicP.MertzC. K.MazzoccoK.DickertS.. 2006. Numeracy and decision making. Psychol. Sci.17: 407–413.
49.
ReynaV. F.2004. How people make decisions that involve risk: A dual process approach. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.13(2): 60–66.
ReynaV. F.NelsonW. L.HanP. K.DieckmannN. F.. 2009. How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychol. Bull.135(6): 943–973.
52.
RowanR.1986. The Intuitive Manager. Little Brown, Boston, MA.
53.
RustichiniA.. 2009. Formal models of decision‐making and cognitive neuroscience. GlimcherP. W.CamererC. F.FehrE.PoldrackR. A.. Neuroeconomics: Decision Making and the Brain. Elsevier, London, UK.
54.
SandersN.ManrodtK. B.. 2003. The efficacy of using judgmental versus quantitative forecasting methods in practice. Omega31: 511–522.
55.
SimonH. A.1979. Models of Thought. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
56.
SimonH. A.1987. Making management decisions: The role of intuition and emotion. Acad. Manage. Exec.1(1): 57–64.
57.
StanovichK. E.WestR. F.. 2000. Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?Behav. Brain Sci.22(5): 645–726.
58.
ToplakM.WestR. F.StanovichK. E.. 2011. The cognitive reflection test as a predictor of performance on heuristics and biases tasks. Mem. Cogn.39(7): 1275–1289.
59.
TverskyA.KahnemanD.. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science185(4157): 1124–1131.
60.
WilsonT. D.SchoolerJ. W.. 1991. Thinking too much: Introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. J. Person. Soc. Psychol.60(2): 181–192.
