The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How much information does an expert use? Is it relevant?
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810
Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9 · Cited by 9,984
Cited by
Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346 · Cited by 4,037
Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development.
Murphy, Black, Lamping, McKee, Sanderson, Askham, & Marteau (1998) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta2030 · Cited by 2,051
Fast and Frugal Heuristics: The Tools of Bounded Rationality
Gigerenzer, G. (2004) · Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1002/9780470752937.ch4 · Cited by 477
Rationality for mortals: how people cope with uncertainty
(2009) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.46-4133 · Cited by 469
Consensus Development Methods: A Review of Best Practice in Creating Clinical Guidelines
Black, N., Murphy, M., Lamping, D., McKee, M., Sanderson, C., Askham, J., & Marteau, T. (1999) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1177/135581969900400410 · Cited by 451
Metadata
- Authors
- Shanteau, J.
- Venue
- Acta Psychologica
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1992-10
- Volume
- 81
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 75-86
- ISSN
- 0001-6918 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1971109976
- Cited by
- 359
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 1.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How much information does an expert use? Is it relevant? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0001-6918(92)90012-3
- The paper
- Shanteau, J. (1992). How much information does an expert use? Is it relevant? Acta Psychologica. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(92)90012-3
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
