Why we still use our heads instead of formulas: Toward an integrative approach.
Abstract
This review begins with a discussion of Meehl's (1957) query regarding when to use one's head (i.e., intuition) instead of the formula (i.e., statistical or mechanical procedure) for clinical prediction. It then describes the controversy that ensued and analyzes the complexity and contemporary relevance of the question itself. Going beyond clinical inference, it identifies select cognitive biases and constraints that cause decision errors, and proposes remedial correctives. Given that the evidence shows cognition to be flawed, the article discusses the linear regression, Bayesian, signal detection, and computer approaches as possible decision aids. Their cost-benefit trade-offs, when used either alone or as complements to one another, are examined and evaluated. The critique concludes with a note of cautious optimism regarding the formula's future role as a decision aid and offers several interim solutions.
Cites (203)
- Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under riskKahneman, Daniel, Tversky, Amos · 1988 · Decision, Probability and Utility
- Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and BiasesTversky, Amos, Kahneman, Daniel · 1975 · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making
- A BEHAVIORAL MODEL OF RATIONAL CHOICESimon, Herbert A. · 1955 · The Quarterly Journal of Economics
- Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.Nisbett, Richard E., Wilson, Timothy D. · 1977 · Psychological Review
- Measuring the Accuracy of Diagnostic SystemsSwets, John A. · 1988 · Science
- Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs.Tsoukias, Alexis, Keeney, Ralph L., Raiffa, Howard · 1994 · The Journal of the Operational Research Society
- Human Problem Solving.Axten, Nick, Newell, Allen, Simon, Herbert A. · 1973 · Contemporary Sociology
- FOUNDATIONS OF STATISTICS2001 · Empirical Direction in Design and Analysis
- Human Problem SolvingAllen Newell · 1972
- Rational choice and the structure of the environment.Simon, H. A. · 1956 · Psychological Review
Cited by (23)
- Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgmentLogg, Jennifer M., Minson, Julia A., Moore, Don A. · 2019 · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
- Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: the clinical -statistical controversyGrove, William M., Meehl, Paul E. · 1996 · Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
- Behavioral Decision Research: A Constructive Processing PerspectivePayne, John W., Bettman, James R., Johnson, Eric J. · 1992 · Annual Review of Psychology
- Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners2001 · International Series in Operations Research & Management Science
- A systematic review of algorithm aversion in augmented decision makingBurton, Jason W., Stein, Mari‐Klara, Jensen, Tina Blegind · 2020 · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Why we still use our heads instead of formulas: Toward an integrative approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037//0033-2909.107.3.296
- The paper
- Kleinmuntz, B. (1990). Why we still use our heads instead of formulas: Toward an integrative approach. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.107.3.296
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.