Subjective probability intervals: How to reduce overconfidence by interval evaluation

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 30, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 1167-1175

  Winman, Anders ^a   Hansson, Patrik ^b   Juslin, Peter ^a  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PROBABILITY; REVIEW;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; PROBABILITY;

EID: 7544228578     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1167     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Block, R., & Harper, D. (1991). Overconfidence in estimation: Testing the anchoring-and-adjustment hypothesis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 49, 188-207.
2. Erev, I., Wallsten, T. S., & Budescu, D. V. (1994). Simultaneous over- and underconfidence: The role of error in judgment processes. Psychological Review, 101, 519-527.
3. Fiedler, K. (2000). Beware of samples! A cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases. Psychological Review, 107, 659-676.
4. Fiedler, K., & Juslin, P. (in press). Introduction: Taking the interface between mind and environment seriously. In K. Fiedler & P. Juslin (Eds.), In the beginning there is a sample: Information sampling as a key to understand adaptive cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
5. Juslin, P., Hansson, P., & Winman, A. (2004). The naive intuitive statistician: A sampling model of format dependence in probability judgment. Unpublished manuscript, Uppsala University, Sweden.
6. Juslin, P., Olsson, H., & Björkman, M. (1997). Brunswikian and Thurstonian origins of bias in probability assessment: On the interpretation of stochastic components of judgment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 189-209.
7. Juslin, P., & Persson, M. (2002). PROBabilities from EXemplars (PROBEX): A "lazy" algorithm for probabilistic inference from generic knowledge. Cognitive Science, 26, 563-607.
8. Juslin, P., Wennerholm, P., & Olsson, H. (1999). Format dependency in subjective probability calibration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 1038-1052.
9. Juslin, P., Winman, A., & Olsson, H. (2000). Naive empiricism and dogmatism in confidence research: A critical examination of the hard-easy effect. Psychological Review, 107, 384-396.
10. Juslin, P., Winman, A., & Olsson, H. (2003). Calibration, additivity, and source independence of probability judgments in general knowledge and sensory discrimination tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92, 34-51.
11. Kareev, Y., Arnon, S., & Horwitz-Zeliger, R. (2002). On the misperception of variability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 287-297.
12. Klayman, J., Soll, J. B., González-Vallejo, C., & Barlas, S. (1999). Over-confidence: It depends on how, what, and whom you ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 216-247.
13. Koehler, D. J., & Harvey, N. (1997). Confidence judgments by actors and observers. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 221-242.
14. Savage, L. J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York: Wiley.
15. Sniezek, J. A., Paese, P. W., & Switzer, F. S. C. (1990). The effects of choosing on confidence in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 264-282.
16. Soll, J. B. (1996). Determinants of overconfidence and miscalibration: The roles of random error and ecological structure. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 117-137.
17. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion of well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.
18. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgments under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.