The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year.
Human Judgment and Social Policy: Irreducible Uncertainty, Inevitable Error, Unavoidable Injustice
Abstract
This book introduces a new topic; a critical researched-based analysis of the role of human judgment in social policy formation. It applies what has been learned from research on human judgment to specific examples - from the Challenger disaster to present-day debates on health care. Human judgment can be a source of both hope and fear in the creation of social policy. Yet this important process has rarely been examined because research on human judgment has been scarce. Now, however, the results of 50 years of empirical work offer an unprecedented opportunity to examine human judgment and the basis of our hopes and fears. Numerous examples from law, medicine, engineering, and economics are used throughout to demonstrate these and other features of human judgment in action.
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
“Prior research has also established that an irreducible degree of uncertainty exists with respect to the outcomes in the public sector [21,34,57] with both humans and algorithms likely to make mistakes.”
From A Framework of High-Stakes Algorithmic Decision-Making for the Public Sector Developed through a Case Study of Child-Welfare (2021) · cites this paper as [57]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgment, and Social Cognition
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629 · Cited by 5,137
Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic.
Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (2002) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.109.1.75 · Cited by 1,352
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
Unconscious influences on decision making: A critical review
Newell, B. R., & Shanks, D. R. (2014) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x12003214 · Cited by 652
An evaluation of dual-process theories of reasoning
Osman, M. (2004) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03196730 · Cited by 444
Metadata
- Authors
- Hammond, K. R.
- Corresponding author
- Hammond, Kenneth R
- Publisher
- Oxford University PressNew York, NY
- Published
- 1996-09-19
- OpenAlex
- W159586738
- Cited by
- 851
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 60
- FWCI
- 4.13
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Social Science and Policy Research
- Keywords
- human judgment, social policy formation, policy making, cognitive biases, decision-making, Challenger disaster, health policy, public opinion, risk perception
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