Skip to main content
Log in

Extrapolating human probability judgment

  • Published:
Theory and Decision Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We advance a model of human probability judgment and apply it to the design of an extrapolation algorithm. Such an algorithm examines a person's judgment about the likelihood of various statements and is then able to predict the same person's judgments about new statements. The algorithm is tested against judgments produced by thirty undergraduates asked to assign probabilities to statements about mammals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bobrow, D. and Winograd, T.: 1977, ‘An overview of KRL, a knowledge representation langauge,Cognitive Science 1(1), 3–46.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Caramazza, A., Hersch, H. and Torgerson, W.: 1976, ‘Subjective structures and operations in semantic memory’,Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 15, 103–118.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Collins, A. and Loftus, E.: 1975, ‘A spreading activation theory of semantic processing’,Psychological Review 82, 407–428.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Heckerman, D.: 1990,Probabilistic Similarity Networks, Dissertation submitted to the program in Medical Information Sciences, Stanford University.

  5. Heit, E. and Rubinstein, J.: 1992, ‘Similarity and property effects in inductive reasoning’, MS, University of Michigan, Department of Psychology.

  6. Hempel, C.G.: 1966,Philosophy of Natural Science, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Horwich, P.: 1982,Probability and Evidence, New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Howard, R. and Matheson, J.: 1984, ‘Influence diagrams’,In Howard R., and Matheson, J. (Eds.): 1984,Applications of Decision Analysis, Vol II, Strategic Decisions Group, Menlo Park, California.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Howson, C. and Urbach, P.: 1989,Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach, La Salle, IL: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hunter, D.: 1986, ‘Uncertain reasoning using maximum entropy inference;In Kanal, L. and Lemmer, J. (Eds.): 1986,Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jaynes, E.: 1979, ‘Where do we stand on maximum entropy?In Levine, R. and Tribus, M. (Eds.): 1979,The Maximum Entropy Formalism, Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A.: 1980,Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Klir, G.: 1988, ‘Methodological principles of uncertainty in inductive modeling: A new perspective,In Erickson, G. and Smith, C. (Eds.): 1988,Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods in Science and Engineering Vol. 1, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lauritzen, S. and Spiegelhalter, D.: 1988, ‘Local computations with probabilities on graphical structures and their applications to expert systems’,Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B,50(2).

  15. Malt, B. and Smith, E.E.: 1984, ‘Correlated properties in natural categories’,Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 23, 250–269.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Medin, D., Altom, M., Edelson, S., and Freko, D.: 1982, ‘Correlated symptoms and simulated medical diagnosis,Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition 8, 37–50.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Medin, D.L. and Shoben, E.J.: 1988, ‘Context and structure in conceptual combination;Cognitive Psychology 20, 158–190.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Minsky, M.: 1981, ‘A framework for representing knowledge’,In Haugeland, J. (Ed.): 1981,Mind Design, Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, pp. 95–128.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Minsky, M.: 1986,The Society of Mind, New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Neapolitan, R.: 1990,Probabilistic Reasoning in Expert Systems, New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Osherson, D.: 1987, ‘New axioms for the contrast model of similarity’,Journal of Mathematical Psychology 31(1), 93–103.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Osherson, D., Shafir, E. and Smith, E.: (in press) ‘Ampliative inference: On choosing a probability distribution,Cognition.

  23. Osherson, D., Smith, E., Wilkie, O., López, A. and Shafir, E.: 1990, ‘Category based induction,Psychological Review 97(2), 185–200.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Osherson, D., Stern, J., Wilkie, O., Stob, M. and Smith, E.E.: 1991, ‘Default probability,Cognitive Science 15, 251–270.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Pearl, J.: 1988,Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference, San Mateo, CA: Morgan-Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Press, W.H., Flannery, B.P., Teukolsky, S.A., and Vetterling, W.: 1988,Numerical Recipes in C, New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Rips, L., Shoben, E. and Smith, E.E.: 1973, ‘Semantic distance and the verification of semantic relations’,Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rumelhart, D. and Ortony, A.: 1977, ‘The representation of knowledge in memory’,In Anderson, R., Spiro, R. and Montague, W. (Eds.): 1977,Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Shafer, G. and Pearl, J. (Eds.): 1990,Readings in Uncertain Reasoning, San Mateo, CA: Morgan-Kauffmann.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Shafir, E., Smith, E.E. and Osherson, D.: 1990, ‘Typicality and reasoning fallacies’,Memory and Cognition 18(3), 229–239.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Smith, E.E., Shafir, E. and Osherson, D.: (in press), ‘Similarity, plausibility, and judgments of probability’,Cognition.

  32. Smith, E.E. and Medin, D.: 1981,Categories and Concepts, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Smith, E.E., Osherson, D.N. Rips, L.J. and Keane, M.: 1988, ‘Combining prototypes: A selective modification model’,Cognitive Science 12, 485–527.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Smith, E.E.: 1989, ‘Concepts and induction’,In Posner, M. (Eds.): 1989,Foundations of Cognitive Science, Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, pp. 502–526.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Stern, Joshua: 1991,Similarity-Based Likelihood Judgment, M.I.T. Dissertation, Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences.

  36. Tversky, A.: 1977, ‘Features of similarity’,Psychological Review 84(4), 327–362.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Tversky, A. and Gati, I.: 1982, ‘Similarity, separability, and the triangle inequality’,Psychological Review 89(2), 123–154.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D.: 1983, ‘Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment’,Psychological Review 90, 293–315.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Osherson, D., Smith, E.E., Myers, T.S. et al. Extrapolating human probability judgment. Theor Decis 36, 103–129 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01079209

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01079209

Keywords

Navigation