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·Feb 20, 2025

Non est Disputandum de Generalizability? A Glimpse into The External Validity Trial

John List
Topics: Uncategorized
BFI Working Paper·Feb 18, 2025

How Costly Are Business Cycle Volatility and Inflation? A Vox Populi Approach

Dimitris Georgarakos, Kwang Hwan Kim, Olivier Coibion, Myungkyu Shim, Myunghwan Andrew Lee, Yuriy Gorodnichenko, Geoff Kenny, Seowoo Han, and Michael Weber
Topics: Uncategorized
BFI Working Paper·Feb 14, 2025

Decisions Under Risk are Decisions Under Complexity: Comment

Daniel Banki, Uri Simonsohn, Robert Walatka, and George Wu
Topics: Uncategorized