Linear models in decision making.

Dawes, Robyn M., Corrigan, Bernard·1974·Psychological Bulletin

DOI 10.1037/h0037613

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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

Crossref · 10.1037/h0037613

Cites

Statistics

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.

Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7 · Cited by 8,962
Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114 · Cited by 8,490
Heuristic decision making
Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346 · Cited by 4,037
Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.90.4.293 · Cited by 3,991
Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment.
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.004 · Cited by 3,476
The Affect Heuristic
Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.025 · Cited by 2,349
“Clinical versus Actuarial Judgment.”
Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.2648573 · Cited by 2,298
Self-citation
Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment
Logg, J. M., Minson, J. A., & Moore, D. A. (2019) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005 · Cited by 2,061
Evidence for a three-factor theory of emotions
Russell, J. A., & Mehrabian, A. (1977) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/0092-6566(77)90037-x · Cited by 1,940
Homo Heuristicus: Why Biased Minds Make Better Inferences
Gigerenzer, G., & Brighton, H. (2009) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01006.x · Cited by 1,801
The Hot Hand in Basketball: On the Misperception of Random Sequences
Gilovich, T., Vallone, R., & Tversky, A. (1985) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(85)90010-6 · Cited by 1,649
Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: the clinical -statistical controversy
Grove, W. M., & Meehl, P. E. (1996) · Psychology, Public Policy, and Law · doi:10.1037/1076-8971.2.2.293 · Cited by 1,457
Communication of emotions in vocal expression and music performance: different channels, same code?
Juslin, P. N., & Laukka, P. (2003) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.770 · Cited by 1,273
Risk and Rationality in Adolescent Decision Making: Implications for Theory, Practice, and Public Policy
Reyna, V. F., & Farley, F. (2006) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00026.x · Cited by 1,244
Support theory: a nonextensional representation of subjective probability
Tversky, A., & Koehler, D. J. (1994) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.4.547 · Cited by 1,167
A review of multi-objective optimization: Methods and its applications
Gunantara, N. (2018) · Cogent Engineering · doi:10.1080/23311916.2018.1502242 · Cited by 1,150
Ambiguity and self-evaluation: The role of idiosyncratic trait definitions in self-serving assessments of ability.
Dunning, D., Meyerowitz, J. A., & Holzberg, A. D. (1989) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1082 · Cited by 758
Discrete Choice Experiments Are Not Conjoint Analysis
Louviere, J. J., Flynn, T. N., & Carson, R. T. (2010) · Journal of Choice Modelling · doi:10.1016/s1755-5345(13)70014-9 · Cited by 738
The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project: fifty-six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction
Ægisdóttir, S., White, M. J., Spengler, P. M., Maugherman, A. S., Anderson, L. A., Cook, R. S., Nichols, C. N., Lampropoulos, G. K., Walker, B. S., Cohen, G., et al. (2006) · The Counseling Psychologist · doi:10.1177/0011000005285875 · Cited by 737
Unit weighting schemes for decision making
Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1975) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(75)90044-6 · Cited by 673
A multimethodological analysis of cumulative risk and allostatic load among rural children
Evans, G. W. (2003) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.5.924 · Cited by 624
The dilution effect: Nondiagnostic information weakens the implications of diagnostic information
Nisbett, R. E., Zukier, H., & Lemley, R. E. (1981) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(81)90010-4 · Cited by 605
Bayesian Fundamentalism or Enlightenment? On the explanatory status and theoretical contributions of Bayesian models of cognition
Jones, M., & Love, B. C. (2011) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x10003134 · Cited by 533
Vocal Expression Of Emotion
Scherer, K. R., Johnstone, & Klasmeyer, G. (2002) · Handbook of Affective Sciences · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195126013.003.0023 · Cited by 426
Intuitions about combining opinions: misappreciation of the averaging principle
Larrick, R. P., & Soll, J. B. (2006) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1050.0459 · Cited by 410
An operant analysis of problem solving
Skinner, B. F. (1984) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00027412 · Cited by 378
Debiasing
Larrick, R. P. (2004) · Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1002/9780470752937.ch16 · Cited by 328
Heuristics as adaptive decision strategies in management: HEURISTICS IN MANAGEMENT
Artinger, F., Petersen, M., Gigerenzer, G., & Weibler, J. (2015) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.1950 · Cited by 255
Process Tracing Methods in Decision Support Systems Research: Exploring the Black Box
Todd, P., & Benbasat, I. (1987) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/248979 · Cited by 224
Factors influencing the use of a decision rule in a probabilistic task
Arkes, H. R., Dawes, R. M., & Christensen, C. (1986) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(86)90046-4 · Cited by 216
Self-citation
Why study expert decision making? Some historical perspectives and comments
Shanteau, J., & Stewart, T. R. (1992) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(92)90057-e · Cited by 173
Mental Contamination and the Debiasing Problem
Wilson, T. D., Centerbar, D. B., & Brekke, N. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.012 · Cited by 160
Statistical risk assessment: Old problems and new applications
Gottfredson, S. D., & Moriarty, L. J. (2006) · Crime & Delinquency · doi:10.1177/0011128705281748 · Cited by 157
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
Humans rely more on algorithms than social influence as a task becomes more difficult
Bogert, E., Schecter, A., & Watson, R. T. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-87480-9 · Cited by 144
Investigating the paths between working memory, intelligence, knowledge, and complex problem-solving performances via Brunswik symmetry.
Wittmann, W. W., & Süß, H.-M. (2004) · Learning and individual differences: Process, trait, and content determinants. · doi:10.1037/10315-004 · Cited by 139
The superiority of simple alternatives to regression for social science predictions
Dana, J., & Dawes, R. M. (2004) · Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics · doi:10.3102/10769986029003317 · Cited by 131
Self-citation
Towards Mutual Theory of Mind in Human-AI Interaction: How Language Reflects What Students Perceive About a Virtual Teaching Assistant
Wang, Q., Saha, K., Gregori, E., Joyner, D., & Goel, A. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445645 · Cited by 120
Neuropsychological Impairment Following Traumatic Brain Injury: A Dose-Response Analysis
Rohling, M. L., Meyers, J. E., & Millis, S. R. (2003) · The Clinical Neuropsychologist · doi:10.1076/clin.17.3.289.18086 · Cited by 100
Untitled work
(2013) · Cited by 96
Judgmental bootstrapping: Inferring experts' rules for forecasting
Armstrong, J. S. (2001) · International Series in Operations Research & Management Science · doi:10.1007/978-0-306-47630-3_9 · Cited by 78
Inside the Mental Voting Booth: An Impression-Driven Process Model of Candidate Evaluation
Lodge, M., & Stroh, P. (1993) · Explorations in Political Psychology · doi:10.1215/9780822396697-011 · Cited by 66
Numbers of Observations and Variables in Multivariate Analyses
Knapp, T. R., & Campbell-Heider, N. (1989) · Western Journal of Nursing Research · doi:10.1177/019394598901100517 · Cited by 60
Designing Information for Remediating Cognitive Biases in Decision-Making
Zhang, Y., Bellamy, R. K. E., & Kellogg, W. A. (2015) · Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2702123.2702239 · Cited by 51
Moment-by-moment variation in experts' analytic and intuitive cognitive activity
Hamm, R. M. (1988) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/21.21602 · Cited by 51
Classification in the Wild: The Science and Art of Transparent Decision Making
Katsikopoulos, K. V., Şimşek, Ö., Buckmann, M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2021) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/11790.001.0001 · Cited by 42
Assessment of expert performance compared across professional domains.
Thomas, R. P., & Lawrence, A. (2018) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.03.009 · Cited by 23
How to Fool Yourself With Experiments in Testing Theories in Psychological Research.
Wittmann, W. W., & Klumb, P. L. (2006) · Strengthening research methodology: Psychological measurement and evaluation. · doi:10.1037/11384-010 · Cited by 6

Authors: Dawes, R. M., & Corrigan, B.
Venue: Psychological Bulletin
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)
Published: 1974-02
Volume: 81
Issue: 2
Pages: 95-106
ISSN: 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
1939-1455
DOI: 10.1037/h0037613
OpenAlex: W2059372149
Cited by: 1,875
References: 0
FWCI: 35.63
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