CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 220Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsCultural Differences and Values

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cross-Cultural Variations in Probability Judgment Accuracy: Beyond General Knowledge Overconfidence?

Yates, J.Frank, Lee, Ju-Whei, Shinotsuka, Hiromi, Patalano, Andrea L, Sieck, Winston R·1998·Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
DOI 10.1006/obhd.1998.2771
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Previous studies have revealed surprising and persistent cross-cultural variations in overconfidence, whereby respondents in some Asian cultures (e.g., Chinese) exhibit markedly higher degrees of overconfidence than respondents in other cultures (e.g., in the United States and Japan). Most of those demonstrations have entailed general knowledge tasks (e.g., answering questions such as whether Europe is larger than Australia). The present studies sought to determine whether such cross-cultural variations extend to judgments about the kinds of events that bear upon more common practical decisions and to aspects of accuracy other than overconfidence. Subjects in Taiwan, Japan, and the United States made probabilistic differential diagnoses of fictional diseases in a stochastic artificial ecology. Results revealed that previously observed cross-cultural variations do indeed generalize. The data were also informative about several potential accounts for such variations, e.g., arguing against a proposal that they rest on different emphases on discrimination rather than calibration, but consistent with the influences of culture-specific cognitive customs, including responsiveness to explicitly displayed information, regardless of its presumed validity. Copyright 1998 Academic Press.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1006/obhd.1998.2771

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 31 references

2 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Levi, K. R. 1986, Numerical likelihood estimates from physicians and linear models, Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
  2. Peng, 1997, Unpublished manuscript under editorial review
  3. Yates, J. F. 1990, Judgment and decision making, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall
  4. Yates, 1996, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Judgment and Decision Making
  5. Yates, 1990, Measuring and analyzing probability judgment accuracy in medicine, Philippine Journal of Internal Medicine, 28, 21
  6. Zhang, 1992, Unpublished doctoral dissertation

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–220 of 220

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Yates, J. F., Lee, J.-W., Shinotsuka, H., Patalano, A. L., & Sieck, W. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Hokkaido University (JP)
ORCID
Venue
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1998-05
Volume
74
Issue
2
Pages
89-117
ISSN
0749-5978 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1006/obhd.1998.2771
OpenAlex
W2126070272
Cited by
220
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 9
FWCI
4.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Wesleyan University Digital Collections (Wesleyan University) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Wesleyan University Digital Collections (Wesleyan University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
Keywords
overconfidence, probability judgment, cross-cultural comparison, calibration, discrimination (statistics), differential diagnosis, artificial ecology, cultural cognition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review