The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
On the Reconciliation of Probability Assessments
Abstract
This paper investigates the question of how to reconcile incoherent probability assessments, i.e., assessments that are inconsistent with the laws of probability. A general model for the analysis of probability assessments is introduced, and two approaches to the reconciliation problem are developed. In the internal approach, one estimates the subject's true probabilities on the basis of his assessments. In the external approach, an external observer updates his own coherent probabilities in the light of the assessments made by the subject. The two approaches are illustrated and discussed. Least-squares procedures for reconciliation are developed within the internal approach. (Author)
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
Self-citation(2001) · Empirical Direction in Design and Analysis · doi:10.4324/9781410600004-24 · Cited by 6,808
Degroot, M. H. (1974) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1974.10480137 · Cited by 4,004
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.28.020177.000245 · Cited by 1,731
Ramsey, F. P. (2016) · Readings in Formal Epistemology · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20451-2_3 · Cited by 1,301
Probability and the Weighing of Evidence.
M., P. A., & Good, I. J. (1950) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General) · doi:10.2307/2981046 · Cited by 753
Two Further Applications of a Model for Binary Regression
Cox, D. R. (1958) · Biometrika · doi:10.2307/2333203 · Cited by 557
Two further applications of a model for binary regression
COX, D. R. (1958) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/45.3-4.562 · Cited by 556
1. Bayesian Statistics a Review
Lindley, D. V. (1972) · Bayesian Statistics · doi:10.1137/1.9781611970654.ch1 · Cited by 521
Self-citationStudies in Subjective Probability
Huber, P. J., Kyburg, H. E., & Smokler, H. E. (1966) · Revue de l'Institut International de Statistique / Review of the International Statistical Institute · doi:10.2307/1401270 · Cited by 468
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
Self-citationRepresentativeness 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
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Lindley, D. V., Tversky, A., & Brown, R. V.
- Venue
- Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General)
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1979
- Volume
- 142
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 146
- ISSN
- 0035-9238 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1509045286
- Cited by
- 340
- References
- 23
- FWCI
- 12.25
- 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: On the Reconciliation of Probability Assessments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2345078
- The paper
- Lindley, D. V., Tversky, A., & Brown, R. V. (1979). On the Reconciliation of Probability Assessments. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General). https://doi.org/10.2307/2345078
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.
