Despite our intuition that representative expert judgments are highly nonlinear, previous studies have shown only little, if any, nonlinearity in such judgments. The current study presents a method for assessing nonlinearity in judgment that is based on estimating communal nonlinearity—the systematic nonlinearity shared by the community of judges. The article also examines the predictive accuracy of communal nonlinearity, and compares it with the corresponding linear accuracy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonN.H.
(1981).
Foundations of information integration theory.
New York: Academic Press.
2.
BillingR.S.MarcusA.A.
(1983).
Measures of compensate and noncompensatory behavior: Process tracing versus policy capturing.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
31, 331–352.
3.
BirnbaumM.H.CoffeyG.MellersB.A.WeissR.
(1992).
Utility measurement: Configural weight theory and the judge's point of view.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
18, 331–346.
4.
BrannickM.T.BrannickJ.P.
(1989).
Nonlinear and noncompensatory processes in performance evaluation.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
44, 97–122.
5.
BrehmerB.BrehmerA.
(1988).
What have we learned about human judgment from thirty years of policy capturing? In
BrehmerB.JoyceC.R. (Eds.),
Human judgment: The social judgment theory view (pp. 75–113).
Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
6.
DawesR.M.CorriganB.
(1974).
Linear models in decision making.
Psychological Bulletin,
81, 95–106.
7.
EinhornH.J.
(1974).
Cue definition and residual judgment.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
12, 30–49.
8.
GanzachY.
(1995).
Nonlinear models of clinical judgment: Meehl's data revisited.
Psychological Bulletin,
118, 422–429.
9.
GanzachY.
(1998).
Nonlinear models in decision making: The diagnosis of psychosis versus neurosis from the MMPI.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
74, 53–61.
10.
GanzachY.
(2000).
The weighing of pathological and non-pathological information in clinical judgment.
Acta Psychologica,
104, 87–101.
11.
GanzachY.CzaczkesB.
(1995).
On detecting nonlinear noncompensatory judgment strategies: Comparison of alternative regression models.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
61, 168–177.
12.
GoldbergL.R.
(1965).
Diagnosticians vs. diagnostic signs: The diagnosis of psychosis vs. neurosis from the MMPI.
Psychological Monographs,
79(9, Whole No. 602).
13.
GoldbergL.R.
(1970).
Man versus model of man: A rationale, plus some evidence, for a method of improving on clinical inferences.
Psychological Bulletin,
73, 422–432.
14.
GoldbergL.R.
(1971).
Five models of clinical judgment: An empirical comparison between linear and nonlinear representation of the human inference process.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
6, 458–479.
15.
JohnsonE.J.
(1988).
Expertise and decision under uncertainty: Performance and process. In
ChiM.T.H.GlaserR.FarrM.J. (Eds.),
The nature of expertise (pp. 209–228).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16.
JohnsonP.E.HassebrockF.DuranA.S.MollerJ.
(1982).
Multimethod study of human judgment.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
30, 201–230.
17.
MeehlP.
(1954).
Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
18.
MeehlP.
(1959).
A comparison of clinicians with five statistical methods of identifying psychotic MMPI profiles.
Journal of Counseling Psychology,
6, 102–109.
19.
MeyerR.J.
(1987).
The learning of multi-attribute judgment policies.
Journal of Consumer Research,
14, 155–173.
20.
SlovicP.LichtensteinS.
(1971).
Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgment.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
6, 649–744.
21.
WeberE.U.
(1994).
From subjective probability to decision weights: The effect of asymmetric loss function on the evaluation of uncertain outcomes and events.
Psychological Bulletin,
115, 228–242.
22.
WigginsN.HoffmanP.J.
(1968).
Three models of clinical judgment.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
73, 70–77.
