The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1,086 of the 1,090 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Support theory: a nonextensional representation of subjective probability
Abstract
This article presents a new theory of subjective probability according to which different descriptions of the same event can give rise to different judgments. The experimental evidence confirms the major predictions of the theory. First, judged probability increases by unpacking the focal hypothesis and decreases by unpacking the alternative hypothesis. Second, judged probabilities are complementary in the binary case and subadditive in the general case, contrary to both classical and revisionist models of belief. Third, subadditivity is more pronounced for probability judgments than for frequency judgments and is enhanced by compatible evidence. The theory provides a unified treatment of a wide range of empirical findings. It is extended to ordinal judgments and to the assessment of upper and lower probabilities. Both laypeople and experts are often called upon to evaluate the probability of uncertain events such as the outcome of a trial, the result of a medical operation, the success of a business venture, or the winner of a football game. Such assessments play an important role in deciding, respectively, whether to go to court, undergo surgery, invest in the venture, or bet on the home team. Uncertainty is usually expressed in verbal terms (e.g., unlikely or probable), but numerical estimates are also common. Weather forecasters, for example, often report the probability of rain (Murphy, 1985), and economists are sometimes required to estimate the chances of recession (Zarnowitz, 1985). The theoretical and practical significance of subjective probability has inspired psychologists, philosophers, and statisticians to investigate this notion from both descriptive and prescriptive standpoints.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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
“In the unpacking effect, participants judge, say, 'being a lawyer', to be less probable than the 'unpacked' description 'being a tax, corporate, patent, or other type of lawyer' [44][45][46].”
From Bayesian Brains without Probabilities (2016) · cites this paper as [45]
In the citing paper
“when guided to where the peaks are (i.e., starting the android from a different location), for example, by being asked about the pattern _ _ _ _ ing in the more detailed description, then large peaks are found and probability estimates are higher [31,45].”
From Bayesian Brains without Probabilities (2016) · cites this paper as [45]
Citations
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Cohen, J. (1990) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,417
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Self-citationSelf-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change
Bandura, A. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191 · Cited by 43,925
An inventory for measuring depression
BECK, A. T. (1961) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1961.01710120031004 · Cited by 38,032
(1975) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · Cited by 36,737
Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk
Kahneman, D. J., & Tversky, A. (1988) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609220.014 · Cited by 32,720
Self-citationThe satisfaction with life scale
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985) · Journal of Personality Assessment · doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13 · Cited by 31,768
James, W. (1891) · Personality Culture Society · doi:10.1037/11059-000 · Cited by 25,876
The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.117.3.497 · Cited by 23,245
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 1,001
Exploring the divergence between self-assessment and self-monitoring
Eva, K. W., & Regehr, G. (2011) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/s10459-010-9263-2 · Cited by 194
Sympathetic Magical Thinking: The Contagion and Similarity “Heuristics”
Rozin, P. N., & Nemeroff, C. J. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.013 · Cited by 195
If you don't want to be late, enumerate: Unpacking reduces the planning fallacy
Kruger, J., & Evans, M. (2003) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.001 · Cited by 191
How alike is it versus how likely is it: A disjunction fallacy in probability judgments.
Bar‐Hillel, M., & Neter, E. (1993) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.6.1119 · Cited by 192
What Number is “Fifty‐Fifty”?: Redistributing Excessive 50% Responses in Elicited Probabilities
de Bruin, W. B., Fischbeck, P. S., Stiber, N. A., & Fischhoff, B. (2002) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/0272-4332.00063 · Cited by 186
Fundamentals of Risk Analysis and Risk Management
(1996) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9781439821978 · Cited by 186
Zhang, H., & Maloney, L. T. (2012) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2012.00001 · Cited by 679
A Risk and Economic Analysis of Dirty Bomb Attacks on the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach
Rosoff, H., & von Winterfeldt, D. (2007) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00908.x · Cited by 220
Measurement and modality: The scalar basis of modal semantics
Lassiter, D. (2011) · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.8100710 · Cited by 178
Fox, C. R., & Poldrack, R. A. (2009) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-374176-9.00011-7 · Cited by 176
Risk Taking in Latin American Economic Restructuring: Lessons from Prospect Theory
Weyland, K. (1996) · International Studies Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2600956 · Cited by 170
Errors in Probabilistic Reasoning and Judgment Biases
Benjamin, D. J. (2018) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w25200 · Cited by 170
Are We Wise About the Wisdom of Crowds? The Use of Group Judgments in Belief Revision
Mannes, A. E. (2009) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1090.1031 · Cited by 170
Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate?
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.026 · Cited by 178
Inside the Planning Fallacy: The Causes and Consequences of Optimistic Time Predictions
Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & Ross, M. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.016 · Cited by 169
Resistance of personal risk perceptions to debiasing interventions.
Weinstein, N. D., & Klein, W. M. P. (1995) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037//0278-6133.14.2.132 · Cited by 614
Fischhoff, B., & Broomell, S. B. (2019) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050747 · Cited by 197
Yalcin, S. (2010) · Philosophy Compass · doi:10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00360.x · Cited by 164
Fiedler, K. (2017) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691616654458 · Cited by 185
A Task-Based Taxonomy of Cognitive Biases for Information Visualization
Dimara, E., Franconeri, S., Catherine Plaisant, B., Bezerianos, A., & Dragicevic, P. (2018) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2018.2872577 · Cited by 192
Bounded awareness: what you fail to see can hurt you
Chugh, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2007) · Mind & Society · doi:10.1007/s11299-006-0020-4 · Cited by 167
Hypothesis generation and confidence in judgment.
Koehler, D. J. (1994) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.20.2.461 · Cited by 155
Self-citationGoals and plans in decision making
Krantz, D. H., & Kunreuther, H. C. (2007) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500000826 · Cited by 157
A hyper-emotion theory of psychological illnesses.
Johnson-Laird, P. N., Mancini, F., & Gangemi, A. (2006) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.113.4.822 · Cited by 152
Pleskac, T., Wallsten, T., Wang, P., & Lejuez, C. (2008) · Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · doi:10.1037/a0014245 · Cited by 172
Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Posavac, S. S., Kardes, F. R., & Mantel, S. P. (1998) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03212944 · Cited by 154
Why wasn't O.J. convicted? Emotional coherence in legal inference
Thagard, P. R. (2003) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/0269993024400002 · Cited by 147
Gilbert, D. T. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.011 · Cited by 153
Feelings as Information: Moods Influence Judgments and Processing Strategies
Schwarz, N. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.031 · Cited by 149
Improving the way we think about projecting future energy use and emissions of carbon dioxide
Morgan, M. G., & Keith, D. W. (2008) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9458-1 · Cited by 148
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
Self-citationTaking into account the strength of an alternative hypothesis.
McKenzie, C. R. M. (1998) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.24.3.771 · Cited by 146
Wu, G., Zhang, J., & Gonzalez, R. (2004) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470752937.ch20 · Cited by 140
Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate?
Lloyd, A. J. (2002) · Health Economics · doi:10.1002/hec.772 · Cited by 144
Moore, D., Tenney, E., & Haran, U. (2015) · doi:10.1002/9781118468333.ch6 · Cited by 106
Surprisingly rational: Probability theory plus noise explains biases in judgment.
Costello, F., & Watts, P. (2014) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0037010 · Cited by 142
Representing and communicating deep uncertainty in climate-change assessments
Kandlikar, M., Risbey, J. S., & Dessai, S. (2005) · Comptes Rendus Géoscience · doi:10.1016/j.crte.2004.10.010 · Cited by 149
Belief Elicitation: A Horse Race Among Truth Serums
Trautmann, S. T., & van de Kuilen, G. (2015) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.1111/ecoj.12160 · Cited by 155
A note on superadditive probability judgment.
Macchi, L., Osherson, D. N., & Krantz, D. H. (1999) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.106.1.210 · Cited by 140
Distinguishing Two Dimensions of UncertaintyPreprint
Fox, C. R., & Ülkümen, G. (2011) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3695311 · Cited by 138
Frequency, Probability, and Prediction: Easy Solutions to Cognitive Illusions?
Griffin, D. W., & Buehler, R. (1999) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1998.0707 · Cited by 137
Amos Tversky and the Ascent of Behavioral Economics
Laibson, D., & Zeckhauser, R. (1998) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1023/a:1007717224343 · Cited by 135
Hypothesis generation, probability judgment, and individual differences in working memory capacity
Dougherty, M. R. P., & Hunter, J. E. (2003) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/s0001-6918(03)00033-7 · Cited by 130
On the Composition of Risk Preference and Belief.
Wakker, P. P. (2004) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.111.1.236 · Cited by 131
Fischhoff, B. (2010) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science · doi:10.1002/wcs.65 · Cited by 132
The effects of statistical training on choice heuristics in choice under uncertainty
Hansen, D. E., & Helgeson, J. G. (1996) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0771(199603)9:1 · Cited by 12
Self-citationJonsson, A., & Allwood, C. M. (2003) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(02)00028-4 · Cited by 126
The inverse fallacy: An account of deviations from Bayes’s theorem and the additivity principle
Vallée-Tourangeau, G., & Mandel, D. R. (2002) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03195278 · Cited by 123
Testing Ambiguity Models through the Measurement of Probabilities for Gains and Losses
Baillon, A., & Bleichrodt, H. (2015) · American Economic Journal Microeconomics · doi:10.1257/mic.20130196 · Cited by 127
Judging the accuracy of a likelihood judgment: the case of smoking risk
Windschitl, P. D. (2002) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.401 · Cited by 122
Counterfactual Thought, Regret, and Superstition: How to Avoid Kicking Yourself
Miller, D. T., & Taylor, B. R. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.023 · Cited by 120
How Good are Fast and Frugal Heuristics?
Gigerenzer, G., Czerlinski, J., & Martignon, L. F. (1999) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-5089-1_6 · Cited by 125
Conflict Aversion: Preference for Ambiguity vs Conflict in Sources and Evidence
Smithson, M. (1999) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.1999.2844 · Cited by 158
Understanding Misunderstanding: Social Psychological Perspectives
Pronin, E., Puccio, C., & Ross, L. D. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.038 · Cited by 120
Psychological Bias as a Driver of Financial Regulation
Hirshleifer, D. A. (2008) · European Financial Management · doi:10.1111/j.1468-036x.2007.00437.x · Cited by 137
Bowlin, K. O., Hobson, J. L., & Piercey, M. D. (2012) · The Accounting Review · doi:10.2308/accr-51032 · Cited by 119
Bonus of rebate?: the impact of income framing on spending and saving
Epley, N., Mak, D., & Idson, L. C. (2006) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.519 · Cited by 119
Planning and Integrating Deception into Computer Security Defenses
Almeshekah, M. H., & Spafford, E. H. (2014) · New Security Paradigms Workshop · doi:10.1145/2683467.2683482 · Cited by 118
Implementing systems thinking to manage risk in public private partnership projects
Loosemore, M., & Cheung, E. (2015) · International Journal of Project Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.02.005 · Cited by 129
Bordalo, P., Conlon, J. J., Gennaioli, N., Kwon, S. Y., & Shleifer, A. (2021) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjac031 · Cited by 127
Risk and ethics in biological control
Delfosse, E. S. (2005) · Biological Control · doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2005.09.009 · Cited by 116
The costs and benefits of undoing egocentric responsibility assessments in groups.
Caruso, E. M., Nicholas Epley, A., & Bazerman, M. H. (2006) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.857 · Cited by 113
A survey on bilevel optimization under uncertainty
Beck, Y., Ljubić, I., & Schmidt, M. (2023) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2023.01.008 · Cited by 114
EPS Prize Lecture: Decision by sampling: The role of the decision environment in risky choice
Stewart, N. (2009) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470210902747112 · Cited by 126
A simple remedy for overprecision in judgment
Haran, U., Moore, D. A., & Morewedge, C. K. (2010) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500001637 · Cited by 113
Perspectives on Probability Judgment Calibration
Griffin, D., & Brenner, L. A. (2004) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470752937.ch9 · Cited by 112
Fuzzy-trace theory and lifespan cognitive development
Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2015) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2015.07.006 · Cited by 113
Eliciting Probabilities from Experts
Hora, S. C. (2007) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511611308.009 · Cited by 112
A theoretical foundation of ambiguity measurement
Izhakian, Y. (2020) · Journal of Economic Theory · doi:10.1016/j.jet.2020.105001 · Cited by 111
Typical versus atypical unpacking and superadditive probability judgment
Sloman, S., Rottenstreich, Y., Wisniewski, E., Hadjichristidis, C., & Fox, C. R. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.3.573 · Cited by 102
Uncertainty in Clinical Medicine
Djulbegović, B., Hozo, I., & Greenland, S. (2011) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-51787-6.50011-8 · Cited by 115
Perceptions of health risks of cigarette smoking: A new measure reveals widespread misunderstanding
Krosnick, J. A., Malhotra, N. A., Mo, C. H., Bruera, E. F., Chang, L., Josh Pasek, B., & Thomas, R. K. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0182063 · Cited by 110
Almeshekah, M. H., & Spafford, E. H. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-32699-3_2 · Cited by 108
The Oxford Handbook of Rationality
Rawling, P., & Mele, A. R. (2004) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195145397.001.0001 · Cited by 307
Halkjelsvik, T., & Jørgensen, M. (2011) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0025996 · Cited by 105
The Power of Words: An Empirical Analysis of the Communicative Value of Extended Auditor Reports
Seebeck, A., & Kaya, D. (2022) · European Accounting Review · doi:10.1080/09638180.2021.2021097 · Cited by 118
From mere coincidences to meaningful discoveries
Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2006) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2006.03.004 · Cited by 107
A Value Model for Evaluating Homeland Security Decisions
Keeney, R. L., & von Winterfeldt, D. (2011) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01597.x · Cited by 111
Extensional versus Intuitive Reasoning
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. J. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.003 · Cited by 111
Self-citationA survey of decision making and optimization under uncertainty
Keith, A. J., & Ahner, D. K. (2019) · Annals of Operations Research · doi:10.1007/s10479-019-03431-8 · Cited by 114
Assigning Membership in a Fuzzy Set Analysis
Verkuilen, J. (2005) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124105274498 · Cited by 163
Hammersley, J. S., Bamber, E. M., & Carpenter, T. D. (2010) · The Accounting Review · doi:10.2308/accr.2010.85.2.547 · Cited by 105
Strength of Evidence, Judged Probability, and Choice Under Uncertainty
Fox, C. R. (1999) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1998.0711 · Cited by 105
Conditional Probability and the Cognitive Science of Conditional Reasoning
Oaksford, M., & Nick Chater, A. (2003) · Mind & Language · doi:10.1111/1468-0017.00232 · Cited by 104
Thinking : psychological perspectives on reasoning, judgment and decision making
Hardman, D. K., & Macchi, L. (2003) · Cited by 105
Probability theory, not the very guide of life.
Juslin, P., Nilsson, H., & Winman, A. (2009) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0016979 · Cited by 104
What impacts the impact of rare events
Erev, I., Glozman, I., & Hertwig, R. (2008) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/s11166-008-9035-z · Cited by 101
Emotions and new venture judgment in China
Li, Y. (2009) · Asia Pacific Journal of Management · doi:10.1007/s10490-009-9145-4 · Cited by 106
Dougherty, M. R. P., & Hunter, J. (2003) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03196449 · Cited by 102
Frederick, S. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.032 · Cited by 103
Peecher, M. E., & Piercey, M. D. (2008) · Contemporary Accounting Research · doi:10.1506/car.25.1.10 · Cited by 101
The alternative-outcomes effect.
Windschitl, P. D., & Wells, G. L. (1998) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1411 · Cited by 99
The Bayesian sampler: Generic Bayesian inference causes incoherence in human probability judgments.
Zhu, J.-Q., Sanborn, A. N., & Chater, N. (2020) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000190 · Cited by 95
A survey of quantum-like approaches to decision making and cognition
Ashtiani, M., & Azgomi, M. A. (2015) · Mathematical Social Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2015.02.004 · Cited by 96
Where do hypotheses come from?
Dasgupta, I., Schulz, E., & Gershman, S. J. (2017) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2017.05.001 · Cited by 100
The enhancement effect in probability judgment
Koehler, D. J., Brenner, L. A., & Tversky, A. (1997) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0771(199712)10:4 · Cited by 96
Self-citationThe Delphi method in forecasting financial markets— An experimental study
Kauko, K., & Palmroos, P. (2014) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2013.09.007 · Cited by 95
Several Unresolved Conceptual Problems of Mathematical Psychology
Luce, R. D. (1997) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1006/jmps.1997.1150 · Cited by 97
Fuzzy‐Trace Theory, Risk Communication, and Product Labeling in Sexually Transmitted Diseases
Reyna, V. F., & Adam, M. B. (2003) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/1539-6924.00332 · Cited by 122
The cognitive structure of surprise: looking for basic principles
Lorini, E., & Castelfranchi, C. (2007) · Topoi · doi:10.1007/s11245-006-9000-x · Cited by 93
Metadata
- Authors
- Tversky, A., & Koehler, D. J.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- ORCID
- Koehler, Derek J.
- Venue
- Psychological Review
- Published
- 1994-10
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 547-567
- ISSN
- 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1471
- OpenAlex
- W2054875343
- Cited by
- 1,167
- References
- 1,090
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 67 · 2016: 44 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 49 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 52
- FWCI
- 10.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
- Keywords
- subjective probability, support theory, subadditivity, alternative hypothesis, lower and upper probabilities, probability judgment, frequency judgment, belief revision
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
