Determinants of Linear Judgment: A Meta-Analysis of Lens Model Studies

Autor/inn/en	Karelaia, Natalia; Hogarth, Robin M.
Titel	Determinants of Linear Judgment: A Meta-Analysis of Lens Model Studies
Quelle	In: Psychological Bulletin, 134 (2008) 3, S.404-426 (23 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0033-2909
DOI	10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.404
Schlagwörter	Cues; Meta Analysis; Models; Task Analysis; Cognitive Processes; Performance; Feedback (Response); Research Methodology; Decision Making; Coding + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Stichwort; Meta-analysis; Metaanalyse; Analogiemodell; Aufgabenanalyse; Cognitive process; Kognitiver Prozess; Achievement; Leistung; Research method; Forschungsmethode; Decision-making; Entscheidungsfindung; Codierung; Programmierung
Abstract	The mathematical representation of E. Brunswik's (1952) lens model has been used extensively to study human judgment and provides a unique opportunity to conduct a meta-analysis of studies that covers roughly 5 decades. Specifically, the authors analyzed statistics of the "lens model equation" (L. R. Tucker, 1964) associated with 249 different task environments obtained from 86 articles. On average, fairly high levels of judgmental achievement were found, and people were seen to be capable of achieving similar levels of cognitive performance in noisy and predictable environments. Further, the effects of task characteristics that influence judgment (numbers and types of cues, inter-cue redundancy, function forms and cue weights in the ecology, laboratory versus field studies, and experience with the task) were identified and estimated. A detailed analysis of learning studies revealed that the most effective form of feedback was information about the task. The authors also analyzed empirically under what conditions the application of bootstrapping--or replacing judges by their linear models--is advantageous. Finally, the authors note shortcomings of the kinds of studies conducted to date, limitations in the lens model methodology, and possibilities for future research. (Contains 1 figure, 20 footnotes, and 6 tables.) (Author).
Anmerkungen	American Psychological Association. Journals Department, 750 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242. Tel: 800-374-2721; Tel: 202-336-5510; Fax: 202-336-5502; e-mail: order@apa.org; Web site: http://www.apa.org/publications
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10