Judgment under uncertainty: Informal covariation assessment: Data-based versus theory-based judgments

By Dennis L. Jennings, Teresa M. Amabile, L. Ross. 1982

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Interpretable classification models for recidivism prediction (2015, background): “…with respect to the others – by catering to the fact that most humans are seriously limited in the number of cognitive entities they can handle at once ( 7 ± 2 according to Miller 1984), and seriously limited in estimating the association between three or more variables (Jennings et al. 1982).”
Supersparse linear integer models for optimized medical scoring systems (2015, background): “Further, sparsity and small integer coefficients are also important because humans can only handle a few cognitive entities at once (7± 2 according to Miller, 1984), and are seriously limited in estimating the association between three or more variables (Jennings et al., 1982).”
Reasoning about Sampling Distribitions (2004, background): “Research on conceptual change theory in science education offered a different approach to this problem (e.g., Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982; Lord, Ross, & Lepper, 1979; Jennings, Amabile, & Ross, 1982; Ross & Anderson, 1982).”
A note on the judgmental effects of the balanced scorecard's information organization (2002, background): “…with findings in psychology that people find it difficult to recognize that correlations exist unless they have theories suggesting such relations (Jennings et al., 1982) and with Maines’ (1990) findings in accounting that judgmental discounting for information redundancy (i.e. correlation) does…”