The DOI matches its Crossref record.
State of the Art—Encoding Subjective Probabilities: A Psychological and Psychometric Review
Abstract
In order to review the empirical literature on subjective probability encoding from a psychological and psychometric perspective, it is first suggested that the usual encoding techniques can be regarded as instances of the general methods used to scale psychological variables. It is then shown that well-established concepts and theories from measurement and psychometric theory can provide a general framework for evaluating and assessing subjective probability encoding. The actual review of the literature distinguishes between studies conducted with nonexperts and with experts. In the former class, findings related to the reliability, internal consistency, and external validity of the judgments are critically discussed. The latter class reviews work relevant to some of these characteristics separately for several fields of expertise. In die final section of the paper the results from these two classes of studies are summarized and related to a view of vague subjective probabilities. Problems deserving additional attention and research are identified.
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
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
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Wallsten, T. S., & Budescu, D. V.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 1983-02
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 151-173
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2028076981
- Cited by
- 350
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.00
- 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: State of the Art—Encoding Subjective Probabilities: A Psychological and Psychometric Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/mnsc.29.2.151
- The paper
- Wallsten, T. S., & Budescu, D. V. (1983). State of the Art—Encoding Subjective Probabilities: A Psychological and Psychometric Review. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.2.151
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.