The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A progress report on the training of probability assessors
Abstract
In prescriptive analyses of decisions under uncertainty, decision makers and their expert advisors are often called upon to assess judgmental probability distributions of quantities whose values are unknown to them. This chapter discusses some empirical findings addressed to such questions as: How well can untrained individuals perform such assessments? Do they manifest certain recurrent biases? How can assessors be calibrated? How can they be taught to become better assessors? This chapter deals only with assessments of uncertain quantities that can be thought of as taking on a continuum of possible values. Hence we shall work exclusively with univariate density functions and their cumulative distribution functions. Several different procedures are available for assessing probability distributions of continuous, univariate random variables, but we shall consider only one particular procedure that we and our colleagues have often used in practice. It is called the method of direct fractile assessments .
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
Boys will be Boys: Gender, Overconfidence, and Common Stock Investment
Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. (2001) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355301556400 · Cited by 5,276
Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.90.4.293 · Cited by 3,991
Trading Is Hazardous to Your Wealth: The Common Stock Investment Performance of Individual Investors
Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. (2000) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/0022-1082.00226 · Cited by 3,955
Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment.
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.004 · Cited by 3,476
Who makes acquisitions? CEO overconfidence and the market's reaction☆
MALMENDIER, U., & TATE, G. (2008) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2007.07.002 · Cited by 2,754
Metadata
- Authors
- Alpert, M., & Raiffa, H.
- Venue
- Judgment under Uncertainty
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 1982-04-30
- Pages
- 294-305
- OpenAlex
- W1507663289
- Cited by
- 842
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.06
- 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: A progress report on the training of probability assessors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/cbo9780511809477.022
- The paper
- Alpert, M., & Raiffa, H. (1982). A progress report on the training of probability assessors. Judgment under Uncertainty. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511809477.022
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.