Decontaminating human judgments by removing sequential dependencies

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 23: 24th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2010, NIPS 2010

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages

  Mozer, Michael C ^a   Pashler, Harold ^b   Wilder, Matthew ^a   Lindsey, Robert V ^a   Jones, Matt C ^a   Jones, Michael N ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; DECONTAMINATION; SURVEYS;

COGNITIVE PROCESS; DECONTAMINATION SOLUTION; HUMAN JUDGMENTS; INTERNAL STATE; LATENT STATE; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; RANDOM FIELDS; RATING SCALE; REFERENCE POINTS; SEQUENTIAL DEPENDENCIES;

RELATIVITY;

EID: 85162019107     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. DeCarlo, L. T., & Cross, D. V. (1990). Sequential effects in magnitude scaling: Models and theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 375-396.
2. Ellenberg, J. (March 2008). This psychologist might outsmart the math brains competing for the netflix prize. Wired Magazine, 16. (http://www.wired. com/techbiz/media/magazine/16-03/mf-netflix?currentPage=all#)
3. Furnham, A. (1986). The robustness of the recency effect: Studies using legal evidence. Journal of General Psychology, 113, 351-357.
4. Hogarth, R. M., & Einhorn, H. J. (1992). Order effects in belief updating: The belief adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1-55.
5. Koren, Y. (August 2009). The bellkor solution to the netflix grand prize.
6. Lacouture, Y. (1997). Bow, range, and sequential effects in absolute identification: A response-time analysis. Psychological Research, 60, 121-133.
7. Lafferty, J., McCallum, A., & Pereira, F. (2001). Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In International conference on machine learning (pp. 282-289). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
8. Laming, D. R. J. (1984). The relativity of "absolute" judgements. Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 152-183.
9. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for information processing. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
10. Mumma, G. H., & Wilson, S. B. (2006). Procedural debiasing of primacy/anchoring effects in clinical-like judgments. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 841-853.
11. Parducci, A. (1965). Category judgment: A range-frequency model. Psychological Review, 72, 407-418.
12. Parducci, A. (1968). The relativism of absolute judgment. Scientific American, 219, 84-90.
13. Petrov, A. A., & Anderson, J. R. (2005). The dynamics of scaling: A memory-based anchor model of category rating and identification. Psychological Review, 112, 383-416.
14. Stewart, N., Brown, G. D. A., & Chater, N. (2005). Absolute identification by relative judgment. Psychological Review, 112, 881-911.
15. Sutton, C., & McCallum, A. (2007). An introduction to conditional random fields for relational learning. In L. Getoor & B. Taskar (Eds.), Introduction to statistical relational learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
17. Wedell, D. H., Parducci, A., & Lane, M. (1990). Reducing the dependence of clinical judgment on the immediate context: Effects of number of categories and type of anchors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 319-329.