The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Exceptional Paper—Probability Encoding in Decision Analysis
Abstract
This paper presents the present philosophy and practice used in probability encoding by the Decision Analysis Group at Stanford Research Institute. Probability encoding, the process of extracting and quantifying individual judgment about uncertain quantities, is one of the major functions required in the performance of decision analysis. The paper discusses the setting of the encoding process, including the use of sensitivity analyses to identify crucial state variables for which extensive encoding procedures are appropriate. The importance of balancing modeling and encoding techniques is emphasized and examples of biases and unconscious modes of judgment are reviewed. A variety of encoding methods are presented and their applicability is discussed. The authors recommend and describe a structured interview process that utilizes a trained interviewer and a number of techniques designed to reduce biases and aid in the quantification of judgment.
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
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9 · Cited by 9,984
On the psychology of prediction.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0034747 · Cited by 6,202
Cited by
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
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
Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity
Camerer, C., & Weber, M. (1992) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00122575 · Cited by 1,795
Metadata
- Authors
- Spetzler, C. S., & Staël Von Holstein, C.-A. S.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 1975-11
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 340-358
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2063760437
- Cited by
- 662
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 8.13
- 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: Exceptional Paper—Probability Encoding in Decision Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/mnsc.22.3.340
- The paper
- Spetzler, C. S., & Staël Von Holstein, C.-A. S. (1975). Exceptional Paper—Probability Encoding in Decision Analysis. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.22.3.340
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.