Abstract:Purpose - In forecasting unknown quantities, risk and finance decision makers often rely on one or more biased experts, statistical specialists representing parties with an interest in the decision maker's final forecast. This problem arises in a variety of contexts, and the decision maker may represent a corporate enterprise, rating agency, government regulator, etc. The purpose of the paper is to assist decision makers, experts, and others to have a better understanding of the dynamics of the problem, and to adopt strategies and practices that enhance efficiency.Design/methodology/approach - The problem is formulated as a two-person, non-cooperative Bayesian game with the decision maker and one expert as players, and perfect Bayesian equilibrium solutions are identified. Then the analysis is extended to variations of the game in which the expert's loss function is not common knowledge, and in which there are multiple experts.Findings - In the struggle for information between the decision maker and the experts, the experts generally benefit from greater uncertainty about the parameters of the model. Thus, in attempting to elicit as much information as possible from the experts, the decision maker must strive to minimize all sources of uncertainty.Research limitations/implications - As in most Bayesian games, the analysis requires that a variety of process assumptions and model parameters be common knowledge. These conditions may be difficult to satisfy in real-world applications.Practical implications - The principal finding of the study is that there is truly a struggle for information between the decision maker and the experts. This generally encourages the experts to inject as much uncertainty as possible into the process. To counter this effect, the decision maker might: provide incentives for the experts to increase their sampling information; try to mitigate specific uncertainties regarding the model parameters; and try to increase the number of experts.Originality/value - This is the first paper to apply the framework of signaling games to the problem of eliciting information from biased experts. It is of value to decision makers, experts, and economic researchers.

Biased Learning Creates Overconfidence

Confidence biases and learning among intuitive Bayesians

Rationally misplaced confidence

Overconfident Competing Newsvendors

Investment and reinsurance with incomplete information and biased beliefs

Conditional Estimates of Diffusion Processes for Evaluating the Positive Feedback Trading

The Evolution of Overconfidence

Overconfidence, financial literacy and excessive trading

Which return regime induces overconfidence behavior? Artificial intelligence and a nonlinear approach

Overinference from Weak Signals and Underinference from Strong Signals

The Study on Overconfidence and Overtrading of Chinese Individual Investors

Forecasts From Biased Experts: A "Meta-Credibility" Problem

Overconfidence and Prejudice

Bluffing Promotes Overconfidence on Social Networks

The Longshot Bias Is a Context Effect

Confidence and the stock market: an agent-based approach

Overconfidence in Tournaments: Evidence from the Field

Impact of heterogeneous Confidences on investment Style

Taming the bias zoo

Mitigating Free Riding in Social Networks: the Impact of Underestimating Others’ Ability in Financial Market