Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,504

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Exploring Intuition and its Role in Managerial Decision Making

Dane, Erik, Pratt, Michael G.·2007·Academy of Management Review

Abstract

We review and reconceptualize “intuition,” defining intuitions as affectively charged judgments that arise through rapid, nonconscious, and holistic associations. In doing so, we delineate intuition from other decision-making approaches (e.g., insight, rational). We also develop a model and propositions that incorporate the role of domain knowledge, implicit and explicit learning, and task characteristics on intuition effectiveness. We close by suggesting directions for future research on intuition and its applications to managerial decision making.

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 · 10.5465/amr.2007.23463682

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 17 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G.
Venue
Academy of Management Review
Published
2007-01
Volume
32
Issue
1
Pages
33-54
ISSN
  • 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-3807
OpenAlex
W1995835640
Cited by
1,504
References
17
FWCI
35.86
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.