The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measuring the vague meanings of probability terms.
Abstract
Can the vague meanings of probability terms such as doubtful probable or likely be expressed as membership functions over the [0 1] probability interval? A function for a given term would assign a membership value of zero to probabilities not at all in the vague concept represented by the term a membership value of one to probabilities definitely in the concept and intermediate membership values to probabilities represented by the term to some degree. A modified pair-comparison procedure was used in two experiments to empirically establish and assess membership functions for several probability terms. Subjects performed two tasks in both experiments: They judged (a) to what degree one probability rather than another was better described by a given probability term and (b) to what degree one term rather than another better described a specified probability. Probabilities were displayed as relative areas on spinners. Task a data were analyzed from the perspective of conjoint-measurement theory and membership function values were obtained for each term according to various scaling models. The conjoint-measurement axioms were well satisfied and goodness-of-fit measures for the scaling procedures were high. Individual differences were large but stable. Furthermore the derived membership function values satisfactorily predicted the judgments independently obtained in task b. The results support the claim that the scaled values represented the vague meanings of the terms to the individual subjects in the present experimental context. Methodological implications are discussed as are substantive issues raised by the data regarding the vague meanings of probability terms. (authors)
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
The Analytic Hierarchy Process
SAATY, T. L., & KEARNS, K. P. (1985) · Analytical Planning · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-032599-6.50008-8 · Cited by 15,357
A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures
Saaty, T. L. (1977) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5 · Cited by 10,360
Torgerson, W. S. (1958) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,920
The Concept of a Linguistic Variable and Its Application to Approximate Reasoning—II
Zadeh, L. A. (1975) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/0020-0255(75)90046-8 · Cited by 2,555 · cited 5×
“Assuming that the monotonic shapes are not artifactual, an aid to interpreting the differences between the two types of functions may come from considering functions empirically determined in other areas involving linguistic variables over numerical domains (Zadeh, 1975).”
BackgroundMethodInfluential(1990) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/c2009-0-21635-7 · Cited by 1,953
Advances in Fuzzy Set Theory and Applications
Rohatgi, V. K. (1980) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1980.10486221 · Cited by 1,394
Goguen, J. A. (1969) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/bf00485654 · Cited by 1,007
A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices
Crawford, G., & Williams, C. (1985) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/0022-2496(85)90002-1 · Cited by 965
The boundaries of words and their meanings
Labov, W. (1973) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 683
New ways of analyzing variation in English
Bailey, C. J., & Shuy, R. W. (1973) · Cited by 633
Cited by
Ascioglu, S., Rex, J. H., de Pauw, B., Bennett, J. E., Bille, J., Crokaert, F., Denning, D. W., Donnelly, J. P., Edwards, J. E., Erjavec, Z., et al. (2002) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/323335 · Cited by 2,331
Statistical Methods for Eliciting Probability Distributions
Garthwaite, P. H., Kadane, J. B., & O'Hagan, A. (2005) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1198/016214505000000105 · Cited by 801
Lipkus, I. M. (2007) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x07307271 · Cited by 771
Visualizing Uncertainty About the Future
Spiegelhalter, D., Pearson, M., & Short, I. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1191181 · Cited by 682
A practical guide to structured expert elicitation using the IDEA protocol
Hemming, V., Burgman, M. A., Hanea, A. M., McBride, M. F., & Wintle, B. C. (2018) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12857 · Cited by 528
Metadata
- Authors
- Wallsten, T. S., Budescu, D. V., Rapoport, A., Zwick, R., & Forsyth, B.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
- Published
- 1986
- Volume
- 115
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 348-365
- ISSN
- 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2222
- OpenAlex
- W2072082768
- Cited by
- 517
- References
- 33
- FWCI
- 10.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Measuring the vague meanings of probability terms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0096-3445.115.4.348
- The paper
- Wallsten, T. S., Budescu, D. V., Rapoport, A., Zwick, R., & Forsyth, B. (1986). Measuring the vague meanings of probability terms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.115.4.348
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.