Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 582

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Direct comparison of the efficacy of intuitive and analytical cognition in expert judgment

Hammond, Kenneth R., Hamm, Robert M., Grassia, Janet, Pearson, Tamra·1987·IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics
DOI 10.1109/tsmc.1987.6499282
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Direct comparisons were made of expert highway engineers' use of analytical, quasirational, and intuitive cognition on three different tasks, each displayed in three different ways. Use of a systems approach made it possible to develop indices for measuring the location of each of the nine information display conditions on a continuum ranging from intuition-inducing to analysis-inducing and for measuring the location of each expert engineer's cognition on a continuum ranging from intuition to analysis. Individual analyses of each expert's performance over the nine conditions showed that the location of the task on the task index induced the expert's cognition to be located at the corresponding region on the cognitive continuum index. Intuitive and quasirational cognition frequently outperformed analytical cognition in terms of the empirical accuracy of judgments. Judgmental accuracy was related to the degree of correspondence between the type of task and the type of cognitive activity on the cognitive continuum.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tsmc.1987.6499282

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Hammond, K. R., Hamm, R. M., Grassia, J., & Pearson, T.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics
Publisher
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Published
1987-09
Volume
17
Issue
5
Pages
753-770
ISSN
  • 0018-9472 (ISSN-L)
  • 2168-2909
DOI
10.1109/tsmc.1987.6499282
OpenAlex
W1990364927
Cited by
582
References
0
FWCI
4.26
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

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.