The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases
Abstract
Many decisions are based on beliefs concerning the likelihood of uncertain events such as the outcome of an election, the guilt of a defendant, or the future value of the dollar. These beliefs are usually expressed in statements such as “I think that …,” “chances are …,” “it is unlikely that …,” and so forth. Occasionally, beliefs concerning uncertain events are expressed in numerical form as odds or subjective probabilities. What determines such beliefs? How do people assess the probability of an uncertain event or the value of an uncertain quantity? This article shows that people rely on a limited number of heuristic principles which reduce the complex tasks of assessing probabilities and predicting values to simpler judgmental operations. In general, these heuristics are quite useful, but sometimes they lead to severe and systematic errors. The subjective assessment of probability resembles the subjective assessment of physical quantities such as distance or size. These judgments are all based on data of limited validity, which are processed according to heuristic rules. For example, the apparent distance of an object is determined in part by its clarity. The more sharply the object is seen, the closer it appears to be. This rule has some validity, because in any given scene the more distant objects are seen less sharply than nearer objects.
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
Cited by
The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60214-2 · Cited by 8,822
Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model
Jones, T. M. (1991) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258867 · Cited by 4,135
Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research
Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., & Acquisti, A. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006 · Cited by 2,957
Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(85)90049-4 · Cited by 2,573
Preference and belief: Ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty
Heath, C., & Tversky, A. (1991) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00057884 · Cited by 1,654
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D.
- Venue
- Judgment under Uncertainty
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 1982-04-30
- Pages
- 3-20
- OpenAlex
- W1604801388
- Cited by
- 3,643
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 21.72
- Type
- book chapter
- 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: Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/cbo9780511809477.002
- The paper
- Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Judgment under Uncertainty. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511809477.002
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.