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 601–700 of 1,001
Dixon, P., Rimmer, M. T., Wittwer, G., Rose, A. Z., & Heatwole, N. (2017) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316676714.008 · Cited by 13
Johnson, E. J. (2004) · Journal of Public Policy & Marketing · doi:10.1509/jppm.23.1.2.30402 · Cited by 12
Doxey, M. M. (2012) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2181624 · Cited by 12
Reducing and exaggerating escalation of commitment by option partitioning.
Kwong, J. Y. Y., & Wong, K. F. E. (2014) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0035484 · Cited by 11
Decision Skill Training with the Entscheidungsnavi
von Nitzsch, R., Tönsfeuerborn, M., & Siebert, J. U. (2020) · Lecture notes in business information processing · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-64399-7_2 · Cited by 11
A Criticism of Bernheim & Sprenger's (2020) Tests of Rank Dependence1
Wakker, P. P. (2022) · Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics · doi:10.1016/j.socec.2022.101950 · Cited by 12
Opportunity costs in buying and short selling—Do they really matter?
Shavit, T., Rosenboim, M., & Malul, M. (2011) · Economics Letters · doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2011.03.026 · Cited by 11
Temporal distance moderates description dependence of subjective probability
Bilgin, B., & Brenner, L. A. (2007) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.09.005 · Cited by 11
Conjunction illusions and conjunction fallacies in episodic memory.
Brainerd, C. J., Holliday, R. E., Nakamura, K., & Reyna, V. F. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000017 · Cited by 11
Solution to the paradox of climate sensitivity
Pueyo, S. (2011) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0328-x · Cited by 11
Clemen, R. T. (2008) · Springer optimization and its applications · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-77131-1_1 · Cited by 11
THE RATIONALITY OF BEING GUIDED BY RULES
McClennen, E. F. (2004) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195145397.003.0012 · Cited by 12
Arithmetic computation with probability words and numbers
Mandel, D. R., Dhami, M. K., Tran, S., & Irwin, D. (2021) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.2232 · Cited by 11
Conjunction errors in the prediction of referendum outcomes: Effects of attitude and realism
Teigen, K. H., Martinussen, M., & Lund, T. (1996) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/0001-6918(96)00024-8 · Cited by 11
Judging Auditor Negligence: De-Biasing Interventions, Outcome Bias, and Reverse Outcome BiasPreprint
Grenier, J. H., Peecher, M. E., & Piercey, M. D. (2007) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1015523 · Cited by 11
Starving the Beast: The Psychology of Budget DeficitsPreprint
Baron, J., & McCaffery, E. J. (2004) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.589283 · Cited by 11
Gibson, H. D., Hall, S. G., Petroulas, P., & Tavlas, G. S. (2019) · Journal of International Money and Finance · doi:10.1016/j.jimonfin.2019.102112 · Cited by 20
Lyu, X., & Li, Z. (2019) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2019.1574097 · Cited by 10
Judgment and Decision Making in the Workplace
Zhang, D. C., & Highhouse, S. (2017) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781473914940.n21 · Cited by 10
Blume, L. E., Easley, D. A., & Halpern, J. Y. (2012) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36039-8_1 · Cited by 10
Bigger Not Better: Unpacking Future Expenses Inflates Spending Predictions
Peetz, J., Buehler, R., Koehler, D. J., & Moher, E. (2014) · Basic and Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/01973533.2014.973109 · Cited by 10
Self-citationCan Overconfidence be Debiased by Low‐Probability/High‐Consequence Events?
Li, S., Li, J., Chen, Y., Bai, X., Ren, X., Zheng, R., Rao, L., Wang, Z., & Liu, H. (2010) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01371.x · Cited by 10
Assessing Uncertainty in Physical Constants
Henrion, M., & Fischhoff, B. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.039 · Cited by 10
Jullien, D. (2016) · OEconomia · doi:10.4000/oeconomia.2364 · Cited by 11
Rationality, Language, and the Principle of Charity
Ludwig, K. (2009) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195145397.003.0018 · Cited by 10
Probability Theory Plus Noise: Descriptive Estimation and Inferential Judgment
Costello, F., & Watts, P. (2018) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/tops.12319 · Cited by 10
Caballero, W. N., & Lunday, B. J. (2019) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2019.04.006 · Cited by 10
COMPARISON OF FORCED-CHOICE AND SUBJECTIVE PROBABILITY SCALES MEASURING BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS
Flannelly, L. T., Flannelly, K. J., & McLeod, M. S. (2000) · Psychological Reports · doi:10.2466/pr0.2000.86.1.321 · Cited by 10
A Discrete Choice Model When Context Matters
Billot, A., & Thisse, J. (1999) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1006/jmps.1998.1237 · Cited by 10
Khemlani, S. (2018) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119170174.epcn311 · Cited by 9
Proximity bias: Interactive effect of spatial distance and outcome valence on probability judgments
Hong, J. S., Longoni, C., & Morwitz, V. G. (2023) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1002/jcpy.1341 · Cited by 9
One Too Many? Understanding the Influence of Risk Factor Quantity on Perceptions of Risk
Dawson, I. G. J., JOHNSON, J. E. V., & Luke, M. A. (2016) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.12690 · Cited by 9
Du, N., & Budescu, D. V. (2021) · Journal of Economic Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.joep.2020.102358 · Cited by 10
Biswas, D., & Pechmann, C. (2011) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.11.007 · Cited by 9
Can a Space-Perception Conflict Be Solved with Three Sense Modalities?
Bedford, F. L. (2007) · Perception · doi:10.1068/p5632 · Cited by 9
Whitman, J. C., & Woodward, T. S. (2011) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0141-6 · Cited by 9
Stuart, J. O., Windschitl, P. D., Smith, A. R., & Scherer, A. M. (2015) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.1918 · Cited by 10
Interpolating causal mechanisms: The paradox of knowing more.
Stephan, S., Tentori, K., Pighin, S., & Waldmann, M. R. (2021) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0001016 · Cited by 9
Jia, L., Gao, Q., Liu, Z., Tan, H., & Zhou, L. (2020) · International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2020.103060 · Cited by 10
The similarity-updating model of probability judgment and belief revision.
Albrecht, R., Jenny, M. A., Nilsson, H., & Rieskamp, J. (2021) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000299 · Cited by 9
Expert Judgement of Probability and Risk
Wright, G., Bolger, F., & Rowe, G. (2009) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/9780230236837_11 · Cited by 9
Formalizing Heuristics in Decision-Making: A Quantum Probability Perspective
Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2011) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00289 · Cited by 9
Probabilistic judgment on a coarser scale
Sun, Y., Wang, H., Zhang, J., & Smith, J. W. (2007) · Cognitive Systems Research · doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2007.03.001 · Cited by 10
The Use of Statistical Heuristics in Everyday Inductive Reasoning
Nisbett, R. E., Krantz, D. H., Jepson, C., & Kunda, Z. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.030 · Cited by 9
How do I Know how much I don’t Know? A cognitive approach about Uncertainty and Ignorance
Pezzulo, G., Lorini, E., & Calvi, G. (2004) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 9
Mele, A. R. (2009) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195145397.003.0013 · Cited by 9
On the Genesis of Inflated (and Deflated) Judgments of Responsibility: Egocentrism RevisitedPreprint
Kruger, J., & Savitsky, K. (2006) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.946245 · Cited by 9
Errors in Probabilistic Reasoning and Judgment BiasesPreprint
Benjamin, D. J. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3293360 · Cited by 13
Improving Judgments of Existential Risk: Better Forecasts, Questions, Explanations, PoliciesPreprint
Karger, E., Atanasov, P. D., & Tetlock, P. E. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4001628 · Cited by 9
The Synchronicity Principle Under Quantum Probabilistic Inferences
Moreira, C., & Wichert, A. (2015) · NeuroQuantology · doi:10.14704/nq.2015.13.1.788 · Cited by 8
Effect of Graph Scale on Risky Choice: Evidence from Preference and Process in Decision-Making
Sun, Y., Li, S., Bonini, N., & Liu, Y. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146914 · Cited by 8
Star Wars: Response to Simonson, Winer/Fader, and Kozinets
de Langhe, B., Fernbach, P. M., & Lichtenstein, D. R. (2016) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucw007 · Cited by 9
Fisher, C. R., & Wolfe, C. R. (2014) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.1818 · Cited by 8
Cannon, J. N., Denison, C. A., & Watanabe, O. V. (2019) · Journal of Accounting Auditing & Finance · doi:10.1177/0148558x19885554 · Cited by 8
Ivanova‐Stenzel, R., & Seres, G. (2021) · European Economic Review · doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2021.103725 · Cited by 8
Cognition in the woods: Biases in probability judgments by search and rescue planners
Hill, K. A. (2012) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500002825 · Cited by 8
Vilches‐Montero, S. (2015) · Marketing Letters · doi:10.1007/s11002-015-9367-9 · Cited by 8
Actor–Observer differences in realism in confidence and frequency judgments
Allwood, C. M., & Johansson, M. (2004) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.06.006 · Cited by 8
Statistical Structures Underlying Quantum Mechanics and Social Science
Wright, R. (2003) · International Journal of Theoretical Physics · doi:10.1007/s10773-006-9297-7 · Cited by 9
Some characterizations of (strongly) subadditive discounting functions
Rambaud, S. C., & Torrecillas, M. J. M. (2014) · Applied Mathematics and Computation · doi:10.1016/j.amc.2014.05.095 · Cited by 8
Evaluating the inverse reasoning account of object discovery
Carroll, C. D., & Kemp, C. (2015) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.03.003 · Cited by 8
Nakamura, K. (2012) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 7
Dreier, J. (2009) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195145397.003.0009 · Cited by 8
Diagnosis is driven by probabilistic reasoning: counter-point
Cahan, A. (2016) · Diagnosis · doi:10.1515/dx-2016-0019 · Cited by 8
A Hamiltonian Driven Quantum-Like Model for Overdistribution in Episodic Memory Recollection
Broekaert, J., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2017) · Frontiers in Physics · doi:10.3389/fphy.2017.00023 · Cited by 8
Support Theory: A Nonextensional Representation of Subjective Probability
Tversky, A., & Koehler, D. J. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.027 · Cited by 8
Self-citationFoliard, S. (2011) · Revue internationale P M E Économie et gestion de la petite et moyenne entreprise · doi:10.7202/1013666ar · Cited by 8
Econophysics and individual choice
Bordley, R. F. (2005) · Physica A Statistical Mechanics and its Applications · doi:10.1016/j.physa.2005.03.016 · Cited by 7
Composite Prospect Theory: A proposal to combine ‘prospect theory’ and ‘cumulative prospect theory’Preprint
al‐Nowaihi, A., & Dhami, S. (2010) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 8
HUMAN JUDGMENT AND IMPRECISE PROBABILITIES
Smithson, M. J. (1997) · Cited by 8
Pinillos, N. Á. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198871965.001.0001 · Cited by 9
Upward Self-Revision: Constructing Possible Selves
Carroll, P. J. (2014) · Basic and Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/01973533.2014.934451 · Cited by 7
Order effects in diagnostic reasoning with four candidate hypotheses
Rebitschek, F. G., Scholz, A., Bocklisch, F., Krems, J. F., & Jahn, G. (2012) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · doi:10.5167/uzh-136038 · Cited by 7
A Tale of Two Tails: On the Coexistence of Overweighting and Underweighting of Rare Extreme Events
Epper, T., & Fehr-Duda, H. (2017) · Alexandria (UniSG) (University of St.Gallen) · Cited by 7
Small arms and light weapons: the disjunction problem
Alley, R. (2019) · Conflict Security and Development · doi:10.1080/14678802.2019.1570722 · Cited by 7
Fragmentation in the European Monetary Union: Is it really over?
Candelon, B., Luisi, A., & Roccazzella, F. (2021) · Journal of International Money and Finance · doi:10.1016/j.jimonfin.2021.102545 · Cited by 7
The tide that lifts all focal boats: Asymmetric predictions of ascent and descent in rankings
Davidai, S., & Gilovich, T. D. (2016) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500007555 · Cited by 7
de Wit, J., Pieters, W., & van Gelder, P. H. A. J. M. (2023) · Security Journal · doi:10.1057/s41284-023-00373-6 · Cited by 7
Reducing Undecided Voters and Other Sources of Error in Election Surveys
Flannelly, K. J., Flannelly, L. T., & McLeod, M. S. (2000) · International Journal of Market Research · doi:10.1177/147078530004200206 · Cited by 7
If Mozart Had Died at Your Age: Psychologic Versus Statistical Inference
Lebow, R. N. (2016) · Pioneers in arts, humanities, science, engineering, practice · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-40027-3_4 · Cited by 7
Zhao, J., & Osherson, D. N. (2013) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/13546783.2013.795916 · Cited by 7
Tetlock, P. E. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.034 · Cited by 7
Subjective Probability in Behavioral Economics and Finance: A Radical Reformulation
Jeffrey, H. J., & Putman, A. O. (2015) · Journal of Behavioral Finance · doi:10.1080/15427560.2015.1065262 · Cited by 9
Reassessing the Association of Intent to Join the Military and Subsequent Enlistment
Ford, M. T., Gibson, J. L., Griepentrog, B. K., & Marsh, S. M. (2014) · Military Psychology · doi:10.1037/mil0000020 · Cited by 7
Attitudes to Uncertainty in a Strategic Setting*
Li, Z., Loomes, G., & Pogrebna, G. (2017) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.1111/ecoj.12486 · Cited by 7
Group moral discount: Diffusing blame when judging group members
Vainapel, S., Weisel, O., Zultan, R., & Shalvi, S. (2018) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.2106 · Cited by 7
Entirely possible overruns: how people think and talk about probabilistic cost estimates
Teigen, K., Andersen, B., Alnes, S. L., & Hesselberg, J. (2019) · International Journal of Managing Projects in Business · doi:10.1108/ijmpb-06-2018-0114 · Cited by 6
Park, J.-Y., & Park, D.-H. (2019) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su11246912 · Cited by 8
Characteristics of a Process for Subjective Probability Elicitation
Quigley, J. M., & Walls, L. (2021) · International series in management science/operations research/International series in operations research & management science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-46474-5_13 · Cited by 8
Unpacking a time interval lengthens its perceived temporal distance
Liu, Y., Li, S., & Sun, Y. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01345 · Cited by 7
Gist Representations and Communication of Risks about HIV-AIDS: A Fuzzy-Trace Theory Approach
Wilhelms, E. A., Reyna, V. F., Brust-Renck, P. G., Weldon, R. B., & Corbin, J. C. (2015) · Current HIV Research · doi:10.2174/1570162x13666150511142748 · Cited by 7
Extreme Value Theory-Based Methods for Visual Recognition
Scheirer, W. J. (2017) · Synthesis lectures on computer vision · doi:10.2200/s00756ed1v01y201701cov010 · Cited by 7
Note on the rationality of rule‐based versus exemplar‐based processing in human judgment
Juslin, P., & Olsson, H. (2004) · Scandinavian Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2004.00376.x · Cited by 7
Saeed, M. M., & Shabir, S. (2013) · UniSA Research Outputs Repository (University of South Australia) · doi:10.5897/ajbm11.520 · Cited by 7
Rovane, C. A. (2009) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195145397.003.0017 · Cited by 7
Uncertainty And Variability In Risk Analysis
Shlyakhter, A., & Wilson, R. (1996) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9781439821978.ch1.3 · Cited by 7
INDOT Construction Inspection Priorities
Mostafavi, A., & Abraham, D. M. (2012) · Purdue e-Pubs (Purdue University System) · doi:10.5703/1288284314669 · Cited by 7
Quantum probability updating from zero prior (by-passing Cromwell's rule)Preprint
Basieva, I., Pothos, E. M., Trueblood, J. S., Khrennikov, A. Y., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.08128 · Cited by 7
Kane, J., McGraw, A. P., & Leaf Van Boven, A. (2010) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1532598 · Cited by 7
Amortized Hypothesis Generation
Dasgupta, I., Schulz, E., Goodman, N. D., & Gershman, S. J. (2017) · doi:10.1101/137190 · Cited by 7
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
