A note on superadditive probability judgment

Psychological Review

Volumn 106, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 210-214

  Macchi, Laura ^a   Osherson, Daniel ^c   Krantz, David H ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

^b Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

^c NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040216911     PISSN: 0033295X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.106.1.210     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. Briggs, L. K., & Krantz, D. H. (1992). Judging the strength of designated evidence. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5, 77-106.
2. Cohen, J., Dearnaley, E., & Hansel, C. (1956). The addition of subjective probabilities: The summation of estimates of success and failure. Acta Psychologica, 12, 371-380.
3. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1978). Fault trees: Sensitivity of estimated failure probabilities to problem representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 330-344.
4. Redelmeier, D. A., Koehler, D. J., Liberman, V., & Tversky, A. (1995). Probability judgment in medicine: Discounting unspecified alternatives. Medical Decision Making, 15, 227-231.
5. Rottenstreich, Y., & Tversky, A. (1997). Unpacking, repacking, and anchoring: Advances in support theory. Psychological Review, 104, 406-415.
6. Shafer, G. (1976). A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7. Tversky, A., & Koehler, D. J. (1994). Support theory: A nonextensional representation of subjective probability. Psychological Review, 101, 547-567.
8. Wallsten, T., Budescu, D., & Zwick, R. (1992). Comparing the calibration and coherence of numerical and verbal probability judgments. Management Science, 39, 176-190.