IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jrisku/v22y2001i3p227-49.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Relation between Probability and Evidence Judgment: An Extension of Support Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Idson, Lorraine Chen
  • Krantz, David H.
  • Osherson, Daniel
  • Bonini, Nicolao

Abstract

We propose a theory that relates perceived evidence to numerical probability judgment. The most successful prior account of this relation is Support Theory, advanced in Tversky and Koehler (1994). Support Theory, however, implies additive probability estimates for binary partitions. In contrast, superadditivity has been documented in Macchi, Osherson, and Krantz (1999), and both sub- and superadditivity appear in the experiments reported here. Nonadditivity suggests asymmetry in the processing of focal and nonfocal hypotheses, even within binary partitions. We extend Support Theory by revising its basic equation to allow such asymmetry, and compare the two equations' ability to predict numerical assessments of probability from scaled estimates of evidence for and against a given proposition. Both between- and within-subject experimental designs are employed for this purpose. We find that the revised equation is more accurate than the original Support Theory equation. The implications of asymmetric processing on qualitative assessments of chance are also briefly discussed. Copyright 2001 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Suggested Citation

  • Idson, Lorraine Chen & Krantz, David H. & Osherson, Daniel & Bonini, Nicolao, 2001. "The Relation between Probability and Evidence Judgment: An Extension of Support Theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 227-249, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:22:y:2001:i:3:p:227-49
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://journals.kluweronline.com/issn/0895-5646/contents
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Enrico Diecidue & Dolchai La-ornual, 2009. "Reconciling support theory and the book-making principle," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 173-190, June.
    2. Richard Zeckhauser & W. Viscusi, 2008. "Discounting dilemmas: Editors’ introduction," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 95-106, December.
    3. Christopher W. Karvetski & David R. Mandel, 2020. "Coherence of probability judgments from uncertain evidence: Does ACH help?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(6), pages 939-958, November.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:6:p:939-958 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Radzevick, Joseph R. & Moore, Don A., 2008. "Myopic biases in competitions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 206-218, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:22:y:2001:i:3:p:227-49. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.