The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Determinants of linear judgment: A meta-analysis of lens model studies.
Open accessAbstract
The mathematical representation of E. Brunswik's (1952) lens model has been used extensively to study human judgment and provides a unique opportunity to conduct a meta-analysis of studies that covers roughly 5 decades. Specifically, the authors analyzed statistics of the "lens model equation" (L. R. Tucker, 1964) associated with 249 different task environments obtained from 86 articles. On average, fairly high levels of judgmental achievement were found, and people were seen to be capable of achieving similar levels of cognitive performance in noisy and predictable environments. Further, the effects of task characteristics that influence judgment (numbers and types of cues, inter-cue redundancy, function forms and cue weights in the ecology, laboratory versus field studies, and experience with the task) were identified and estimated. A detailed analysis of learning studies revealed that the most effective form of feedback was information about the task. The authors also analyzed empirically under what conditions the application of bootstrapping--or replacing judges by their linear models--is advantageous. Finally, the authors note shortcomings of the kinds of studies conducted to date, limitations in the lens model methodology, and possibilities for future research.
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
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
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 1×
“…strategies that rely heavily on a single cue or few cues (e.g., representativeness heuristic, Kahneman & Tversky, 1972; availability heuristic, Tversky & Kahneman, 1973; “take-the-best” heuristic, Gigerenzer & Goldstein, 1996) requires a certain level of expertise.6 Performance levels that…”
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
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
Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis.
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.486 · Cited by 2,977
“Clinical versus Actuarial Judgment.”
Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.2648573 · Cited by 2,298 · cited 2×
“The finding that more expertise does not lead to better judgmental achievement echoes a review by Dawes et al. (1989), in which the authors suggest that in some domains, expertise can be difficult to develop and is therefore only weakly related to performance criteria (see also Shanteau, 1992a).”
Meta-Analysis: Recent Developments in Quantitative Methods for Literature Reviews
Rosenthal, R., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2001) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.59 · Cited by 1,780
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
Self-citationEffects of cognitive feedback on performance.
Balzer, W. K., Doherty, M. E., & O'Connor, R. (1989) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.106.3.410 · Cited by 516
Cited by
Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree.
Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/a0016755 · Cited by 2,443
A model for programmatic assessment fit for purpose.
van der Vleuten, C. P. M., Schuwirth, L. W. T., Driessen, E. W., Dijkstra, J., Tigelaar, D., Baartman, L. K. J., & van Tartwijk, J. (2012) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2012.652239 · Cited by 892
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
Jacobson, N. C., & Newman, M. G. (2017) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000111 · Cited by 576
Kangas, M., Bovbjerg, D. H., & Montgomery, G. H. (2008) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0012825 · Cited by 428
Metadata
- Authors
- Karelaia, N., & Hogarth, R. M.
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 2008
- Volume
- 134
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 404-426
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W2119853015
- Cited by
- 352
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 2.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Determinants of linear judgment: A meta-analysis of lens model studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.404
- The paper
- Karelaia, N., & Hogarth, R. M. (2008). Determinants of linear judgment: A meta-analysis of lens model studies. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.404
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.
