Weighing Evidence: An Attempt to Assess the Efficiency of the Human Operator

Abstract

A diagnostic task was constructed in which there were four hypotheses. Subjects had to assess the probable truth of each hypothosis and revise their assessments as evidence accumulated. Previous investigations have indicated that subjects are inefficient in tasks of this kind because they undervalue evidence. It is shown that although this is generally true a few subjects make accurate probability revisions. A primacy effect was demonstrated and it was also shown that subjects find it difficult to combine evidence from two sources when these appear to be disparate

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 41 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.