Forecasters predicting how people change their behavior in response to a treatment or intervention often consider a set of alternatives. In contrast, those who are treated are typically exposed to only one of the treatment alternatives. For example, managers considering a wage schedule consider a set of alternative wages while employees are hired at a given rate. We show that forecasts made in joint- prediction mode–which considers a set of alternatives–generate predictions that expect substantially larger behavioral responses than those made in separate- prediction mode–which considers the response to only one treatment realization in isolation. Results show the latter to be more accurate in matching people’s actual responses to interventions and treatment changes. We present applications to managerial decision-making and forecasting of scientific results.

More on this topic

BFI Working Paper·Jun 23, 2026

Misleading Estimates from Nonlinear Models with a Binary Outcome

Brian Curran, Bruce Meyer, and Derek Wu
Topics: Uncategorized
BFI Working Paper·Jun 15, 2026

Don’t Give Up on Lab Experiments: Why the Field Still Needs the Lab

John List
Topics: Uncategorized
BFI Working Paper·May 5, 2026

Retrospective Versus Prospective Meritocracy

Steven Durlauf
Topics: Uncategorized