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 301–400 of 1,001
The Dud-Alternative Effect in Likelihood Judgment.
Windschitl, P. D., & Chambers, J. R. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.1.198 · Cited by 51
Heuristics and Biases in Application
Fischhoff, B. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.043 · Cited by 51
Clinical versus Actuarial Judgment
Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.042 · Cited by 53
Subadditivity, patience, and utility: The effects of dividing time intervals
McAlvanah, P. (2010) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2010.06.009 · Cited by 51
Are Risk Assessments of a Terrorist Attack Coherent?
Mandel, D. R. (2005) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied · doi:10.1037/1076-898x.11.4.277 · Cited by 50
Samuels, R., & Stich, S. P. (2009) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195145397.003.0015 · Cited by 50
Putting Adjustment Back in the Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic
Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. D. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.009 · Cited by 52
Regenwetter, M., Ho, M.-H. R., & Tsetlin, I. (2007) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.114.4.994 · Cited by 49
Security games with surveillance cost and optimal timing of attack execution
An, B., Brown, M., Vorobeychik, Y., & Tambe, M. (2013) · doi:10.5555/2484920.2484958 · Cited by 49
Consideration Set Overvaluation: When Impossibly Favorable Ratings of a Set of Brands Are Observed
Kardes, F. R., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Cronley, M. L., & Houghton, D. C. (2002) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1016/s1057-7408(16)30086-9 · Cited by 49
Probabilistic Coherence Weighting for Optimizing Expert Forecasts
Karvetski, C. W., Olson, K. C., Mandel, D. R., & Twardy, C. R. (2013) · Decision Analytics · doi:10.1287/deca.2013.0279 · Cited by 49
Live-odds gambling advertising and consumer protection
Newall, P. W. S., Ankush, T., Walasek, L., & Meyer, C. (2019) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0216876 · Cited by 54
Harvey, J. T. (1998) · Journal of Economic Issues · doi:10.1080/00213624.1998.11506010 · Cited by 48
Naive Probability: Model‐Based Estimates of Unique Events
Khemlani, S., Lotstein, M., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2014) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.12193 · Cited by 47
Memory Constraints on Hypothesis Generation and Decision Making
Thomas, R. P., Dougherty, M. R. P., & Buttaccio, D. R. (2014) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721414534853 · Cited by 47
Quantifying and Mitigating the Splitting Bias and Other Value Tree-Induced Weighting Biases
Jacobi, S. K., & Hobbs, B. F. (2007) · Decision Analysis · doi:10.1287/deca.1070.0100 · Cited by 46
Loss Aversion, Omission Bias, and the Burden of Proof in Civil Litigation
Zamir, E., & Ritov, I. (2012) · The Journal of Legal Studies · doi:10.1086/664911 · Cited by 49
Like Goes with Like: The Role of Representativeness in Erroneous and Pseudo-Scientific Beliefs
Gilovich, T. D., & Savitsky, K. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.036 · Cited by 50
Incorporating Diagnostic Expectations into the New Keynesian Framework
L’Huillier, J.-P., Singh, S. R., & Yoo, D. (2023) · The Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.1093/restud/rdad101 · Cited by 45
Sherman, S. J., Cialdini, R. B., Schwartzman, D. F., & Reynolds, K. D. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.006 · Cited by 46
The Subjective Beliefs Underlying Probability Overestimation
Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Posavac, S. S., & Stasney, R. (1997) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1006/jesp.1996.1321 · Cited by 45
Asano, M., Basieva, I., Khrennikov, A. Y., Ohya, M., & Tanaka, Y. (2012) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2012.02.003 · Cited by 44
Spiegler, R. (2014) · American Economic Journal Microeconomics · doi:10.1257/mic.6.3.35 · Cited by 42
Wu, H., Lindell, M. K., & Prater, C. S. (2015) · Natural Hazards · doi:10.1007/s11069-015-1846-z · Cited by 44
Product Quality Risk Perceptions and Decisions: Contaminated Pet Food and Lead-Painted Toys
Feng, T., Keller, L. R., Wang, L., & Wang, Y. (2010) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01459.x · Cited by 44
Time Perspective in Career-Related Choices: Applications of Time-Discounting Principles
Hesketh, B. L. (2000) · Journal of Vocational Behavior · doi:10.1006/jvbe.1999.1725 · Cited by 44
Implications of Cognitive Load for Hypothesis Generation and Probability Judgment
Sprenger, A. M., Dougherty, M. R. P., Atkins, S. M., Franco‐Watkins, A. M., Thomas, R. P., Lange, N. D., & Abbs, B. (2011) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00129 · Cited by 43
Interference processes in fuzzy-trace theory: Aging, Alzheimer's disease, and development.
Reyna, V., & Mills, B. (2007) · American Psychological Association eBooks · doi:10.1037/11587-010 · Cited by 47
Bottom, W. P., Ladha, K. K., & Miller, G. J. (2002) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1023/a:1020643713354 · Cited by 44
Elstein, A. S., Schwartz, A., & NENDAZ, M. R. (2002) · Springer international handbooks of education · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-0462-6_9 · Cited by 45
Instruction in information structuring improves Bayesian judgment in intelligence analysts
Mandel, D. R. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00387 · Cited by 43
Time-related Discounting of Value and Decision-Making about Job Options
Hesketh, B. L., Watson-Brown, C., & Whiteley, S. (1998) · Journal of Vocational Behavior · doi:10.1006/jvbe.1996.1570 · Cited by 43
Aging and Conditional Probability Judgments: A Global Matching Approach.
Spaniol, J., & Bayen, U. J. (2005) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/0882-7974.20.1.165 · Cited by 43
Remarks on Support Theory: Recent Advances and Future Directions
Brenner, L. A., Koehler, D. J., & Rottenstreich, Y. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.029 · Cited by 45
Self-citationWhat is Doubt and When is it Reasonable?
Thagard, P. R. (2004) · Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplementary Volume · doi:10.1080/00455091.2004.10717611 · Cited by 42
Competence effects for choices involving gains and losses
Resende, J. G. D. L., & Wu, G. (2010) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/s11166-010-9089-6 · Cited by 41
On the relation between counterfactual and causal reasoning
Spellman, B. A., & Ndiaye, D. (2007) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x07002725 · Cited by 42
Stackelberg Security Games (SSG) Basics and Application Overview
An, B., Tambe, M., & Sinha, A. (2017) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316676714.021 · Cited by 43
When good evidence goes bad: The weak evidence effect in judgment and decision-making
Fernbach, P. M., Darlow, A., & Sloman, S. A. (2011) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.01.013 · Cited by 42
Fox, C. R., & Poldrack, R. A. (2013) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-416008-8.00042-5 · Cited by 48
Toward an Integrative Theory of Hypothesis Generation, Probability Judgment, and Hypothesis Testing
Dougherty, M. R. P., Thomas, R. P., & Lange, N. D. (2010) · The Psychology of learning and motivation/The psychology of learning and motivation · doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(10)52008-5 · Cited by 41
Dougherty, M. R. P., & Sprenger, A. M. (2006) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.135.2.262 · Cited by 41
Bostrom, A. (2003) · Futures · doi:10.1016/s0016-3287(02)00100-3 · Cited by 40
Practical Aspects of Theoretical Reasoning
Harman, G. H. (2009) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195145397.003.0003 · Cited by 40
Violations of dominance in decision-making
Kourouxous, T., & Bauer, T. (2019) · BuR - Business Research · doi:10.1007/s40685-019-0093-7 · Cited by 43
Public Awareness and Risk Perceptions of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: A Qualitative Study
Kelly, M., Connolly, L., & Dean, M. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17217778 · Cited by 40
Pezdek, K., Blandón‐Gitlin, I., Lam, S. T., Hart, R. E., & Schooler, J. W. (2006) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03195925 · Cited by 40
The dud effect: Adding highly dissimilar fillers increases confidence in lineup identifications.
Charman, S. D., Wells, G. L., & Joy, S. W. (2011) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9261-1 · Cited by 45
Interior Additivity and Subjective Probability Assessment of Continuous Variables
Clemen, R. T., & Ulu, C. (2008) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1070.0790 · Cited by 40
Lindell, M. K. (2014) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-404681-8.00018-2 · Cited by 40
Non‐transitive Choice: Event‐Splitting Effects or Framing Effects?
Humphrey, S. J. (2001) · Economica · doi:10.1111/1468-0335.00234 · Cited by 40
Uncertainty Without All the Doubt
Norby, A. (2015) · Mind & Language · doi:10.1111/mila.12072 · Cited by 40
Security Games with Limited Surveillance
An, B., Kempe, D., Kiekintveld, C. D., Shieh, E., Singh, S. P., Tambe, M., & Vorobeychik, Y. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v26i1.8236 · Cited by 39
Quantum cognition and Bell’s inequality: A model for probabilistic judgment bias
Gronchi, G., & Strambini, E. (2016) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2016.09.003 · Cited by 33
Pickett, J. T. (2018) · Crime & Delinquency · doi:10.1177/0011128718763136 · Cited by 43
Wang, G., Liu, M., Cao, D., & Tan, D. (2021) · Engineering Construction & Architectural Management · doi:10.1108/ecam-07-2020-0581 · Cited by 39
The effects of request formats on judgment-based effort estimation
Jørgensen, M., & Halkjelsvik, T. (2009) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2009.03.076 · Cited by 39
Understanding pooled subjective probability estimates
Wallsten, T. S., & Diederich, A. (2001) · Mathematical Social Sciences · doi:10.1016/s0165-4896(00)00053-6 · Cited by 39
The effects of forecast type and performance-based incentives on the quality of management forecasts
Chen, C. X., Rennekamp, K. M., & Zhou, F. H. (2015) · Accounting Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2015.03.002 · Cited by 39
Coalescing, Event Commutativity, and Theories of Utility
Luce, R. D. (1998) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1023/a:1007762425252 · Cited by 40
On the provenance of judgments of conditional probability
Zhao, J., Shah, A., & Osherson, D. N. (2009) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.07.006 · Cited by 38
Nudging App Adoption: Choice Architecture Facilitates Consumer Uptake of Mobile Apps
Reeck, C., Posner, N. A., Mrkva, K., & Johnson, E. J. (2022) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/00222429221141066 · Cited by 39
Discounting dilemmas: Editors’ introduction
Zeckhauser, R. J., & Viscusi, W. (2008) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/s11166-008-9055-8 · Cited by 36
Predicting Consumption Time: The Role of Event Valence and Unpacking
Tsai, C. I., & Zhao, M. (2011) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/659379 · Cited by 39
The preference for distributed helping.
Sharps, D. L., & Schroeder, J. (2019) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspi0000179 · Cited by 37
Levels of Organization in General Intelligence
Yudkowsky, E. (2007) · Cognitive technologies · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-68677-4_12 · Cited by 38
Reasoning with conditionals: Does every counterexample count? It’s frequency that counts
Geiger, S. M., & Oberauer, K. (2007) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03192938 · Cited by 38
Beware of black swans: Taking stock of the description–experience gap in decision under uncertainty
de Palma, A., Abdellaoui, M., Attanasi, G., Ben-Akiva, M. E., Erev, I., Fehr-Duda, H., Fok, D., Fox, C. R., Hertwig, R., Picard, N., et al. (2014) · Marketing Letters · doi:10.1007/s11002-014-9316-z · Cited by 39
Fox, C. R., & Birke, R. (2002) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1023/a:1014687809032 · Cited by 38
Thagard, P. R. (2009) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195145397.003.0019 · Cited by 38
Over- and Underreaction to InformationPreprint
Ba, C., Bohren, J. A., & Imas, A. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4274617 · Cited by 38
Superposition of Episodic Memories: Overdistribution and Quantum Models
Brainerd, C. J., Wang, Z., & Reyna, V. F. (2013) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/tops.12039 · Cited by 37
The effect of framing actuarial risk probabilities on involuntary civil commitment decisions.
Scurich, N., & John, R. S. (2010) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9218-4 · Cited by 40
A Head‐to‐Head Comparison of Augmented Wealth in Germany and the United States*
Bönke, T., Grabka, M. M., Schröder, C., & Wolff, E. N. (2019) · Scandinavian Journal of Economics · doi:10.1111/sjoe.12364 · Cited by 39
Quantum-like dynamics applied to cognition: a consideration of available options
Broekaert, J., Basieva, I., Błasiak, P., & Pothos, E. M. (2017) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rsta.2016.0387 · Cited by 37
Keswani, S., Dhingra, V., & Wadhwa, B. (2019) · International Journal of Economics and Finance · doi:10.5539/ijef.v11n8p80 · Cited by 46
Why more can be less: An inference-based explanation for hyper-subadditivity in bundle valuation
Leszczyc, P. T. L. P., Pracejus, J. W., & Shen, Y. (2007) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.10.001 · Cited by 39
Organizational Knowledge Acquisition
Gaines, B. R. (2004) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-24746-3_16 · Cited by 36
Biased Beliefs About Random Samples: Evidence from Two Integrated Experiments
Benjamin, D. J., Moore, D., & Rabin, M. (2017) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w23927 · Cited by 41
Improving Homeland Security Decisions
Abbas, A. E., Tambe, M., & von Winterfeldt, D. (2017) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316676714.001 · Cited by 37
Cognitive shortcuts in causal inference
Fernbach, P. M., & Rehder, B. (2012) · Argument & Computation · doi:10.1080/19462166.2012.682655 · Cited by 36
Is the mind Bayesian? The case for agnosticism
Baratgin, J., & Politzer, G. (2006) · Mind & Society · doi:10.1007/s11299-006-0007-1 · Cited by 39
The Hot Hand in Basketball: On the Misperception of Random Sequences
Gilovich, T. D., Vallone, R. P., & Tversky, A. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.035 · Cited by 39
Self-citationQuantum probability updating from zero priors (by-passing Cromwell’s rule)
Basieva, I., Pothos, E. M., Trueblood, J. S., Khrennikov, A. Y., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2016) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2016.08.005 · Cited by 38
Innumeracy and unpacking: Bridging the nomothetic/idiographic divide in violence risk assessment.
Scurich, N., Monahan, J. T., & John, R. S. (2012) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1037/h0093994 · Cited by 35
The Effects of Providing Examples in Survey Questions
Tourangeau, R., Conrad, F. G., Couper, M. P., & Ye, C. (2014) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nft083 · Cited by 39
Comparison Neglect in Upgrade Decisions
Sela, A., & LeBoeuf, R. A. (2016) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmr.14.0394 · Cited by 35
Boosting intelligence analysts’ judgment accuracy: What works, what fails?
Mandel, D. R., Karvetski, C. W., & Dhami, M. K. (2018) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500006628 · Cited by 35
Improving information evaluation for intelligence production
Irwin, D., & Mandel, D. R. (2019) · Intelligence & National Security · doi:10.1080/02684527.2019.1569343 · Cited by 35
The importance of online reviews depends on when they are presented
Camilleri, A. R. (2020) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2020.113307 · Cited by 37
Effect of Patient Financial Incentives on Statin Adherence and Lipid Control
Barankay, I., Reese, P. P., Putt, M. E., Russell, L. B., Loewenstein, G. F., Pagnotti, D. R., Yan, J., Zhu, J., McGilloway, R., Brennan, T. A., et al. (2020) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.19429 · Cited by 35
Self-Deception and Emotional Coherence
Sahdra, B. K., & Thagard, P. R. (2003) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1023/a:1022940107699 · Cited by 37
Are Event-Splitting Effects Actually Boundary Effects?
Humphrey, S. J. (2001) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1023/a:1011105607742 · Cited by 34
Sakti, A., Azevedo, I. L., Fuchs, E. R. H., Michalek, J. J., Gallagher, K. G., & Whitacre, J. F. (2017) · Energy Policy · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.063 · Cited by 34
EXPLICIT: a feasibility study of remote expert elicitation in health technology assessment
Grigore, B., Peters, J., Hyde, C., & Stein, K. (2017) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-017-0527-0 · Cited by 34
Non‐Bayesian Inference: Causal Structure Trumps Correlation
Bes, B., Sloman, S. A., Lucas, C. G., & Raufaste, É. (2012) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01262.x · Cited by 34
Rationality in the new paradigm: Strict versus soft Bayesian approaches
Elqayam, S., & Evans, J. S. B. T. (2013) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/13546783.2013.834268 · Cited by 34
Daniel Kahneman et l'analyse de la décision face au risque
Gollier, C., Hilton, D., & Raufaste, É. (2003) · Revue d économie politique · doi:10.3917/redp.133.0295 · Cited by 47
Decision and Choice: Luce's Choice Axiom
Pleskac, T. J. (2015) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-8.43031-x · Cited by 34
Are within-subjects designs transparent?
Lambdin, C., & Shaffer, V. A. (2009) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500001133 · Cited by 33
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
