Researchers increasingly elicit beliefs to understand the underlying motivations of decision makers. Two commonly used methods are the quadratic scoring rule (QSR) and the binarized scoring rule (BSR). Hossain and Okui (2013) use a within-subject design to evaluate the performance of these two methods in an environment where subjects report probabilistic beliefs over binary outcomes with objective probabilities. In a near replication of their study, we show that their results continue to hold with a between-subject design. This is an important validation of the BSR given that researchers typically implement only one method to elicit beliefs. In favor of the BSR, reported beliefs are less accurate under the QSR than the BSR. Consistent with theoretical predictions, risk-averse subjects distort their reported beliefs under the QSR.

研究人员越来越多地激发人们对决策者潜在动机的理解。两种常用的方法是二次评分规则（QSR）和二值化评分规则（BSR）。Hossain和Okui（2013）使用受试者内部设计来评估这两种方法在受试者报告具有客观概率的二元结果概率概率的环境中的性能。在他们研究的近乎重复的研究中，我们证明了他们的结果在主题间设计中继续保持不变。这是对BSR的重要验证，因为研究人员通常仅采用一种方法得出信念。赞成BSR的是，在QSR中报告的信念不如BSR准确。与理论预测一致，规避风险的受试者在QSR下扭曲了他们所报道的信念。