A demonstration that experimental subjects who appear to make very poor probability estimates may in fact be making careful and consistent estimates based on a different mental model of the situation than that used by the investigator. Of 11 male college students engaged in a 300trial probability estimation task involving hypothetical bombs aimed at hypothetical targets, nine gave estimates that compared very poorly with the "true" values calculated by the experimenters. Comments by the subjects led to a reanalysis of the data according to a different method of estimation. This showed that the responses were, in fact, accurate in terms of the subjects' implicit model of the situation. Care must be taken not to confuse a subject's accuracy in probability estimation tasks with his conceptual structuring of the problem. 14 pp. Refs.
This report is part of the RAND paper series. The paper was a product of RAND from 1948 to 2003 that captured speeches, memorials, and derivative research, usually prepared on authors' own time and meant to be the scholarly or scientific contribution of individual authors to their professional fields. Papers were less formal than reports and did not require rigorous peer review.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.