Stylistic Components of Human Judgment: The Generality of Individual Differences

Ramanaiah, Nerella V.; Goldberg, Lewis R.

doi:10.1177/014662167700100106

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Correlations between measures of performance on general-knowledge questions and those same measures applied to basketball predictions showed substantial consistency in mean confidence, but only weak consistency in other components of judgment quality. These findings are consonant with the results of Ramanaiah and Goldberg (1977), who found more individual consistency for confidence than for 11 other components of judgment. Clearly, skill.in probability judgment is not a unitary trait.…”

Section: Individual Consistencysupporting

confidence: 86%

Components of probability judgment accuracy: Individual consistency and effects of subject matter and assessment method

Ronis

Yates

1987

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

212

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An experiment is reported in which subjects assigned probabilities to the outcomes of basketball games and to the truth of general-knowledge items. Three different methods were used for eliciting subjects' probability judgments. Subjects were more successful in selecting answers to the generalknowledge questions than they were in picking basketball game winners. The overall accuracy of their probability judgments for general-knowledge items was superior, too. On the other hand, subjects' judgments about generalknowledge questions were more overconfident, more poorly calibrated, and included greater scatter. One method of probability assessment gave subjects an irrelevant cue. This was found to increase confidence and overconfidence and to hurt calibration. Correlations between measures of performance on general-knowledge questions and basketball predictions showed substantial individual consistency in confidence, but only weak consistency in other components of judgment quality. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Individual Consistencysupporting

confidence: 86%

Components of probability judgment accuracy: Individual consistency and effects of subject matter and assessment method

Ronis

Yates

1987

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

212

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Often the perfectly reliable regression model performs better than the original judgments used to derive it (Armstrong 2001, Camerer 198 1 , Goldberg 1970). Cooksey, Freebody, and Bennett (1990) and Ramanaiah and Goldberg (1977) found that the reliability of bootstrapped judgments was higher than the reliability of the judgments themselves.…”

Section: Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When the adjusted R$,, value is estimated from their results, the value is .79, which is comparable to the average reliability of .72 obtained using repeated judgments. Ramanaiah and Goldberg (1977) report a correlation of .89 between reliability and the multiple correlation for 83 subjects, thus suggesting that the multiple correlation can be a reasonable indicator of reliability. …”

mentioning

confidence: 91%

Improving Reliability of Judgmental Forecasts

Stewart

2001

International Series in Operations Research &Amp; Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

All judgmental forecasts will be affected by the inherent unreliability, or inconsistency, of the judgment process. Psychologists have studied this problem extensively, but forecasters rarely address it. Researchers and theorists describe two types of unreliability that can reduce the accuracy of judgmental forecasts: (1) unreliability of information acquisition, and (2) unreliability of information processing. Studies indicate that judgments are less reliable when the task is more complex; when the environment is more uncertain; when the acquisition of information relies on perception, pattern recognition, or memory; and when people use intuition instead of analysis. Five principles can improve reliability in judgmental forecasting:1. Organize and present information in a form that clearly emphasizes relevant information.2. Limit the amount of information used in judgmental forecasting. Use a small number of really important cues. 3.Use mechanical methods to process infomation. 4.Combine several forecasts. Require justification of forecasts.Keywords: Accuracy, combining forecasts, error, information acquisition, information processing, psychometrics, reliability.People are not consistent. Imperfect reliability (sometimes called "inconsistency") is observed in nearly all human behavior. Observe a person on separate occasions that are identical in every important respect, and you will observe different behavior on each occasion. If a person takes the same test on two different occasions, the two test scores will differ. If Stewart, T. R. (2001). Improving reliability of judgmental forecasts. In J. S. Armstrong (Ed.), Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook for : Kluwer Academic Publishers. 82PRINCIPLES OF FORECASTING a person judges the loudness of a sound one day and then judges the same sound the next day, the judgments will usually differ. If a forecaster made a judgmental forecast and then could be somehow transported back in time to repeat the same forecast under identical conditions, she would almost certainly make a different forecast. In short, unreliability is a source of error in judgmental forecasting. In the long run, it can only reduce the accuracy of forecasts. Lack of reliability or consistency has nothing to do with potentially beneficial behavioral changes over time, such as changes due to learning, obtaining new information, or adapting to new circumstances. Unreliability is simply error introduced into the forecast by the natural inconsistency of the human judgment process.If human judgment is so important in forecasting, and unreliability is a pervasive and well known (at least to psychologists) source of error in judgment, then why isn't improving reliability a major concern of those who produce and use forecasts? 1 don't know. One possible reason is that reliability is difficult or impossible to measure directly outside the laboratory. As a result, although we can argue persuasively that a problem exists, it is difficult to demonstrate its importance in operational settings. Another re...

show abstract

“…New status and attention have been given to introspective and subjective "knowledge" (Natsoulas, 1970) and to clinical judgment, empathy, inference, and intuition (Christensen, 1974;Goldberg, 1970Goldberg, , 1972Ramanaian & Goldberg, 1977). With the Rorschach, too, clinical judgment and the subtle influence of intuition must be studied.…”

Section: Looking To the Futurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…But the intuitive need not be unreliable. It has been demonstrated that the intuitive clinical process and the stylistic components of clinical judgment do lend themselves to investigation and that methods may be devised toward improving the accuracy of clinical judgment (Christensen, 1974;Goldberg, 1970Goldberg, , 1972Ramanaian & Goldberg, 1977). It is my hope that we will devise similar research designs toward systematizing and communicating Rorschach ideology and skills.…”

Section: Looking To the Futurementioning

confidence: 99%

Rorschachbound: A 50-Year Memoir

Hertz

1986

Journal of Personality Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Journal of Personality Assessment evokes memories of years past when I participated in its birth. Therefore, in recording what I consider significant events in Rorschach's stormy history, I am placing them within an autobiographical framework. Originally introduced into America by David Levy in the early 1920s, the Rorschach attracted students from many disciplines who revolted against the "trait" psychology that pervaded the psychological scene at the time. For 30 years, we accepted Rorschach enthusiastically as a global method that could study the human personality as a whole and in depth. In the late 1960s, we were challenged because of repeated failures in validating research. Interest declined in its development and application. Since 1970, however, it has emerged with more strength and vigor on firmer theoretical foundations and sounder methodology. Although the method is one of the most frequently required, requested, needed, recommended, and used in many clinical settings, it is still challenged today, chiefly because of overemphasis on the nomothetic approaches in research and failure to consider interactions between personality dynamics, behavior, and situational and sociocultural variables. Those of us whose lives have long been entwined with the history of the Rorschach should step back from the contemporary canvas and contemplate the future of our method, t suggest that we develop alternative conceptual models and greater diversity of research methods and modes of thought. The Journal of Personality Assessment can enhance the future of the Rorschach by giving greater prominence to clinically oriented research, notably to the idiographic and interactional aspects of the method. In so doing, the journal can help the Rorschach reach its real goal of complete scientific validity.

show abstract

Stylistic Components of Human Judgment: The Generality of Individual Differences

Cited by 8 publications

References 35 publications

Components of probability judgment accuracy: Individual consistency and effects of subject matter and assessment method

Components of probability judgment accuracy: Individual consistency and effects of subject matter and assessment method

Improving Reliability of Judgmental Forecasts

Rorschachbound: A 50-Year Memoir

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About