The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making.
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Proper linear models are those in which predictor variables are given weights in such a way that the resulting linear composite optimally predicts some criterion of interest; examples of proper linear models are standard regression analysis, discriminant function analysis, and ridge regression analysis. Research summarized in Paul Meehl's book on clinical versus statistical prediction—and a plethora of research stimulated in part by that book—all indicates that when a numerical criterion variable (e.g., graduate grade point average) is to be predicted from numerical predictor variables, proper linear models outperform clinical intuition. Improper linear models are those in which the weights of the predictor variables are obtained by some nonoptimal method; for example, they may be obtained on the basis of intuition, derived from simulating a clinical judge's predictions, or set to be equal. This article presents evidence that even such improper linear models are superior to clinical intuition when predicting a numerical criterion from numerical predictors. In fact, unit (i.e., equal) weighting is quite robust for making such predictions. The article discusses, in some detail, the application of unit weights to decide what bullet the Denver Police Department should use. Finally, the article considers commonly raised technical, psychological, and ethical resistances to using linear models to make important social decisions and presents arguments that could weaken these resistances.
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“Many decisions require a forecast, and algorithms are almost always better forecasters than humans (Dawes, 1979; Grove et al., 2000; Meehl, 1954).”
From Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. (2015) · cites this paper as Dawes, 1979
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
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
Financial Ratios As Predictors of Failure
Beaver, W. H. (1966) · Journal of Accounting Research · doi:10.2307/2490171 · Cited by 4,882
Unit weighting schemes for decision making
Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1975) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(75)90044-6 · Cited by 673
Cited by
Russell, J. A. (1980) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0077714 · Cited by 16,334
Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346 · Cited by 4,037
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
Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality.
Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.103.4.650 · Cited by 3,504
Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment.
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.004 · Cited by 3,476
Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err.
Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0000033 · Cited by 3,232
Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.025 · Cited by 2,349
“Clinical versus Actuarial Judgment.”
Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.2648573 · Cited by 2,298
Self-citationAlgorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment
Logg, J. M., Minson, J. A., & Moore, D. A. (2019) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005 · Cited by 2,061
Resistance to Medical Artificial Intelligence
Longoni, C., Bonezzi, A., & Morewedge, C. K. (2019) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucz013 · Cited by 2,015
Homo Heuristicus: Why Biased Minds Make Better Inferences
Gigerenzer, G., & Brighton, H. (2009) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01006.x · Cited by 1,801
Things I have learned (so far).
Cohen, J. (1990) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.45.12.1304 · Cited by 1,781
The Hot Hand in Basketball: On the Misperception of Random Sequences
Gilovich, T., Vallone, R., & Tversky, A. (1985) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(85)90010-6 · Cited by 1,649
Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of negative social information.
Pratto, F., & John, O. P. (1991) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.3.380 · Cited by 1,592
Grove, W. M., & Meehl, P. E. (1996) · Psychology, Public Policy, and Law · doi:10.1037/1076-8971.2.2.293 · Cited by 1,457
Predictive Analytics in Information Systems Research1
Shmueli, G., & Koppius, O. R. (2011) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/23042796 · Cited by 1,328
Reyna, V. F., & Farley, F. (2006) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00026.x · Cited by 1,244
Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2018) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2016.2643 · Cited by 1,230
Support theory: a nonextensional representation of subjective probability
Tversky, A., & Koehler, D. J. (1994) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.4.547 · Cited by 1,167
Evolutionary Personality Psychology
Buss, D. M. (1991) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.42.020191.002331 · Cited by 930
Heilbronner, R. L., Sweet, J. J., Morgan, J. E., Larrabee, G. J., Millis, S. R., & Participants1, C. (2009) · The Clinical Neuropsychologist · doi:10.1080/13854040903155063 · Cited by 869
Artificial Intelligence in Utilitarian vs. Hedonic Contexts: The “Word-of-Machine” Effect
Longoni, C., & Cian, L. (2022) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/0022242920957347 · Cited by 831
Human Decisions and Machine Predictions
Kleinberg, J., Lakkaraju, H., Leskovec, J., Ludwig, J., & Mullainathan, S. (2018) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjx032 · Cited by 1,040
A systematic review of algorithm aversion in augmented decision making
Burton, J. W., Stein, M., & Jensen, T. B. (2020) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.2155 · Cited by 814
Letham, B., Rudin, C., McCormick, T. H., & Madigan, D. (2015) · The Annals of Applied Statistics · doi:10.1214/15-aoas848 · Cited by 766
Dunning, D., Meyerowitz, J. A., & Holzberg, A. D. (1989) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1082 · Cited by 758
Advice taking in decision making: egocentric discounting and reputation formation
Yaniv, I., & Kleinberger, E. (2000) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2909 · Cited by 701
Predictive Analytics in Information Systems Research
Shmueli, G., & Koppius, O. (2010) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1606674 · Cited by 676
Manipulating and Measuring Model Interpretability
Poursabzi-Sangdeh, F., Goldstein, D. G., Hofman, J. M., Wortman Vaughan, J. W., & Wallach, H. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445315 · Cited by 728
Unconscious influences on decision making: A critical review
Newell, B. R., & Shanks, D. R. (2014) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x12003214 · Cited by 652
Varieties of knowledge elicitation techniques
Cooke, N. J. (1994) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1006/ijhc.1994.1083 · Cited by 579
Newman, D. T., Fast, N. J., & Harmon, D. J. (2020) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.03.008 · Cited by 550
Allostatic load as a predictor of functional decline
Karlamangla, A. S., Singer, B. H., McEwen, B. S., Rowe, J. W., & Seeman, T. E. (2002) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(02)00399-2 · Cited by 483
Bai, Y., Maruskin, L. A., Chen, S., Gordon, A. M., Stellar, J. E., McNeil, G. D., Peng, K., & Keltner, D. (2017) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspa0000087 · Cited by 476
Making sense of recommendations
Yeomans, M., Shah, A., Mullainathan, S., & Kleinberg, J. (2019) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.2118 · Cited by 459
Treatment selection in depression.
Cohen, Z. D., & DeRubeis, R. J. (2018) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050817-084746 · Cited by 435
Shades of joy: Patterns of appraisal differentiating pleasant emotions.
Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, C. A. (1988) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699938808412702 · Cited by 378
Kim, J., Giroux, M., & Lee, J. C. (2021) · Psychology & Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.21498 · Cited by 353
Risk, uncertainty, and heuristics
Mousavi, S., & Gigerenzer, G. (2014) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.02.013 · Cited by 335
Shafir, E., & LeBoeuf, R. A. (2002) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135213 · Cited by 317
Understanding algorithm aversion: When is advice from automation discounted?
Prahl, A., & Van Swol, L. (2017) · Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1002/for.2464 · Cited by 308
Evaluating the predictive validity of the COMPAS risk and needs assessment system
Brennan, T., Dieterich, W., & Ehret, B. (2009) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0093854808326545 · Cited by 272
Tests of Data Quality, Scaling Assumptions, and Reliability of the Danish SF-36
Bjorner, J. B., Damsgaard, M. T., Watt, T., & Groenvold, M. (1998) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00092-4 · Cited by 253
Instance-based learning: Integrating sampling and repeated decisions from experience.
Gonzalez, C., & Dutt, V. (2011) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0024558 · Cited by 255
Krueger, R. F., & Eaton, N. R. (2010) · Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment · doi:10.1037/a0018990 · Cited by 244
Reisenzein, R. (2000) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/026999300378978 · Cited by 229
Keding, C. (2021) · Management Review Quarterly · doi:10.1007/s11301-020-00181-x · Cited by 231
Process Tracing Methods in Decision Support Systems Research: Exploring the Black Box
Todd, P., & Benbasat, I. (1987) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/248979 · Cited by 224
Factors influencing the use of a decision rule in a probabilistic task
Arkes, H. R., Dawes, R. M., & Christensen, C. (1986) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(86)90046-4 · Cited by 216
Self-citationPeerStudio: Rapid Peer Feedback Emphasizes Revision and Improves Performance
Kulkarni, C. E., Bernstein, M. S., & Klemmer, S. R. (2015) · Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale · doi:10.1145/2724660.2724670 · Cited by 192
Jones-Jang, S. M., & Park, Y. J. (2022) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1093/jcmc/zmac029 · Cited by 178
Keding, C., & Meissner, P. (2021) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120970 · Cited by 168
Combining forecasts: An application to elections
Graefe, A., Armstrong, J. S., Jones, R. J., & Cuzán, A. G. (2014) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2013.02.005 · Cited by 160
Mental Contamination and the Debiasing Problem
Wilson, T. D., Centerbar, D. B., & Brekke, N. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.012 · Cited by 160
Interpretable classification models for recidivism prediction
Zeng, J., Ustun, B., & Rudin, C. (2017) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society · doi:10.1111/rssa.12227 · Cited by 220
The calibration of expert judgment: heuristics and biases beyond the laboratory
Koehler, D. J., Brenner, L., & Griffin, D. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.041 · Cited by 146
Humans rely more on algorithms than social influence as a task becomes more difficult
Bogert, E., Schecter, A., & Watson, R. T. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-87480-9 · Cited by 144
Identifying adolescents at risk for hard drug use: racial/ethnic variations
Ellickson, P. L., & Morton, S. C. (1999) · Journal of Adolescent Health · doi:10.1016/s1054-139x(98)00144-x · Cited by 143
Schmitt, B. (2019) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucz038 · Cited by 128
Inkpen, K., Chappidi, S., Mallari, K., Nushi, B., Ramesh, D., Michelucci, P., Mandava, V., Vepřek, L. H., & Quinn, G. (2023) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3534561 · Cited by 132
Optimal incentives for collective intelligence
Mann, R. P., & Helbing, D. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1618722114 · Cited by 112
Learning Certifiably Optimal Rule Lists for Categorical Data
Angelino, E., Larus-Stone, N., Alabi, D., Seltzer, M., & Rudin, C. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1704.01701 · Cited by 108
“Accuracy of Forecasts in Strategic Intelligence.”
Mandel, D. R., & Barnes, A. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1406138111 · Cited by 101
(2017) · doi:10.1145/3097983.3098047 · Cited by 104
Neuropsychological Impairment Following Traumatic Brain Injury: A Dose-Response Analysis
Rohling, M. L., Meyers, J. E., & Millis, S. R. (2003) · The Clinical Neuropsychologist · doi:10.1076/clin.17.3.289.18086 · Cited by 100
Lessons for artificial intelligence from the study of natural stupidity
Rich, A. S., & Gureckis, T. M. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0038-z · Cited by 94
COGAM: Measuring and Moderating Cognitive Load in Machine Learning Model Explanations
Abdul, A., von der Weth, C., Kankanhalli, M., & Lim, B. Y. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376615 · Cited by 96
Judgmental bootstrapping: Inferring experts' rules for forecasting
Armstrong, J. S. (2001) · International Series in Operations Research & Management Science · doi:10.1007/978-0-306-47630-3_9 · Cited by 78
Inside the Mental Voting Booth: An Impression-Driven Process Model of Candidate Evaluation
Lodge, M., & Stroh, P. (1993) · Explorations in Political Psychology · doi:10.1215/9780822396697-011 · Cited by 66
Meyer, B. M., Rabl, U., Huemer, J., Bartova, L., Kalcher, K., Provenzano, J., Brandner, C., Sezen, P., Kasper, S., Schatzberg, A. F., et al. (2019) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41398-019-0395-8 · Cited by 52
Artificial Intelligence and Groups: Effects of Attitudes and Discretion on Collaboration
Bezrukova, K., Griffith, T. L., Spell, C., Rice, V., & Yang, H. E. (2023) · Group & Organization Management · doi:10.1177/10596011231160574 · Cited by 51
Designed to fit: The development and validation of the STRONG-R recidivism risk assessment
Hamilton, Z., Kigerl, A., Campagna, M., Barnoski, R., Lee, S., van Wormer, J., & Block, L. (2016) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0093854815615633 · Cited by 49
Classification in the Wild: The Science and Art of Transparent Decision Making
Katsikopoulos, K. V., Şimşek, Ö., Buckmann, M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2021) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/11790.001.0001 · Cited by 42
Nolan, K., Carter, N., & Dalal, D. (2016) · Personnel Assessment and Decisions · doi:10.25035/pad.2016.004 · Cited by 28
The effect of individual and task characteristics on decision aid reliance
Parkes, A. (2017) · Behaviour & Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2016.1209242 · Cited by 26
Supersparse Linear Integer Models for Interpretable Classification
Ustun, B., Tracà, S., & Rudin, C. (2013) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1306.6677 · Cited by 26
Assessment of expert performance compared across professional domains.
Thomas, R. P., & Lawrence, A. (2018) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.03.009 · Cited by 23
(1988) · NASA STI Repository (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) · Cited by 12
Gender, knowledge, and trust in artificial intelligence: A classroom-based randomized experiment.
Dávila, A., El Fassi, I., Oyon, D., & Rudolf, N. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-25002-7 · Cited by 3
Improving Advisor Systems: Algorithms that Explain Themselves
Neumann, M., & Kuncel, N. R. (2025) · Journal of Business and Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10869-025-10014-x · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Dawes, R. M.
- Venue
- American Psychologist
- Published
- 1979-07
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 571-582
- ISSN
- 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
- 1935-990X
- OpenAlex
- W2056418346
- Cited by
- 1,966
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 18.29
- 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
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.
