Analysis of a verbal conditioning situation in terms of statistical learning theory.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
People often probability match: they predict events in approximate proportion to their probability of occurrence, even though this results in lower predictive accuracy than maximizing.
“People often probability match: they select choices based on the probability of outcomes.”
From Probability matching and statistical naïveté (2025) · cites this paper as Estes and Straughan, 1954
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Probability matching and statistical naïveté
Barlow, M., Doan, T., Friedman, O., & Denison, S. (2025) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/jdm.2025.10014 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Estes, W. K., & Straughan, J. H.
- Affiliations
- Indiana University Bloomington (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology
- Published
- 1954
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 225-234
- ISSN
- 0022-1015 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2018819936
- Cited by
- 254
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 24.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
- Keywords
- verbal conditioning, statistical learning, associative learning, stimulus-response learning, learning theory
- MeSH terms
- Biometry, Humans, Learning
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
