Cited by 710Risk and Safety AnalysisRisk Perception and ManagementDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Fault trees: sensitivity of estimated failure probabilities to problem representation

Fischhoff, Baruch, Slovic, Paul, Lichtenstein, Sarah·1978·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Abstract

Abstract : Fault trees represent problem situations by organizing things that could go wrong into functional categories. Such trees are essential devices for analyzing and evaluating the fallibility of complex systems. They follow many different formats, sometimes by design, other times inadvertently. Major results were: people were quite insensitive to what had been left out of a fault tree, increasing the amount of detail for the tree as a whole or just for some of its branches produced small effects on perceptions, and the perceived importance of a particular branch was increased by presenting it in pieces (as two separate component branches). Aside from their relevance for the study of problem solving, such results may have important implications for how best to inform the public about technological risks and to involve it in policy decisions and how experts should perform fault-tree analyses of the risks from technological systems.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0096-1523.4.2.330

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 unpacking effect, participants judge a packed description (e.g., 'being a lawyer') to be less probable than an unpacked description (e.g., 'being a tax, corporate, patent, or other type of lawyer').

    “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 [44]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S.
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
Published
1978-05
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
330-344
ISSN
  • 0096-1523 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1277
OpenAlex
W2142405927
Cited by
708
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 24
FWCI
16.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Risk and Safety Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
fault trees, failure probability estimation, problem representation, risk perception, problem solving, expert opinion, risk analysis

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