Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T10:04:16.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2015

Mark A. Burgman
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Trusting Judgements
How to Get the Best out of Experts
, pp. 176 - 200
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbas, A. E. 2009. A Kullback-Leibler view of linear and log-linear pools. Decision Analysis 6, 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, J. 1995. Risk. UCL Press, London.Google ScholarPubMed
Agrawal, A. 1995. Indigenous and scientific knowledge: some critical comments. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor 3, 3–6.Google Scholar
Albert, I., Donnet, S., Guihenneuc-Jouyaux, C., Low-Choy, S., Mengersen, K. and Rousseau, J. 2012. Combining expert opinions in prior elicitation. Bayesian Analysis 7, 503–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldy, J. E. and Viscusi, W. K. 2007. Age differences in the value of statistical life: revealed preference evidence. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 1, 241–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ALRC. 1985. Evidence. Australian Law Reform Commission Report 26. Volume 1. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
ALRC. 2000. Managing justice: a review of the Federal Civil Justice system. Australian Law Reform Commission Report 89. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Anderson, J. L. 1998. Embracing uncertainty: the interface of Bayesian statistics and cognitive psychology. Conservation Ecology 2, 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arbesman, S. 2012. The half-life of facts. Why everything we know has an expiration date. Penguin, New York.Google Scholar
Aristotle, . Politics. Volume 3. Translated by Barker, Ernest, 1995. Oxford World's Classics.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. 1980. The seer-sucker theory: the value of experts in forecasting. Technology Review 82, 16–24.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. 2001. Principles of forecasting: a handbook for researchers and practitioners. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. 2006. Findings from evidence-based forecasting: methods for reducing forecast error. International Journal of Forecasting 22, 583–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton, R. 2000. A review and analysis of research on the test–retest reliability of professional judgment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 13, 277–294.3.0.CO;2-B>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aspinall, W. 2010. A route to more tractable expert advice. Nature 463, 294–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Athanasopoulos, G. and Hyndman, R. J. 2011. The value of feedback in forecasting competitions. International Journal of Forecasting 27, 845–849.Google Scholar
Ayyub, B. M. 2001. Elicitation of expert opinions for uncertainty and risks. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, D., Maggs, D. and Barrett, M. 2009. Judges, courts, the legal profession and public risk. Risk and Regulation Advisory Council, UK.
Bar-Hillel, M. 1980. The base-rate fallacy in probability judgments. Acta Psychologica 44, 211–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, B. M. and Odean, T. 2001. Boys will be boys: Gender, overconfidence, and common stock investment. Quarterly Journal of Economics 116, 261–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barley, S. R. and Kunda, G. 2006. Contracting: a new form of professional practice. Academy of Management Perspectives 20, 45–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, U. 1992. Risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage Publications, London.Google Scholar
Bedford, T. and Cooke, R. 2001. Probabilistic risk analysis: foundations and methods. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedford, T., Quigley, J. and Walls, L. 2006. Expert elicitation for reliable system design. Statistical Science 21, 428–450.Google Scholar
Beissinger, S. R. and Westphal, M. I. 1998. On the use of demographic models of population viability in endangered species management. Journal of Wildlife Management 62, 821–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benda, L. E., Poff, N. L., Tague, C., Palmer, M. A., Pizzuto, J., Cooper, S., Stanley, E. and Moglen, G. 2002. How to avoid train wrecks when using science in environmental problem solving. Bioscience 52, 1127–1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Haim, Y. 2006. Information-gap decision theory: decisions under severe uncertainty. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
Benson, P. G. and Nichols, M. L. 1982. An investigation of motivational bias in subjective predictive probability distributions. Decision Sciences 13, 225–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernard, H. B. 1988. Research methods in cultural anthropology. Sage Publications, London.Google Scholar
Berner, E. S. and Graber, M. L. 2008. Overconfidence as a cause of diagnostic error in medicine. American Journal of Medicine 121, S2–S23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernstein, P. L. 1996. Against the Gods: the remarkable story of risk. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Beyth-Marom, R., Dekel, S., Gombo, R. and Shaked, M. 1985. An elementary approach to thinking under uncertainty. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillside, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Bian, W.-Q. and Keller, L. R. 1999a. Chinese and Americans agree on what is fair, but disagree on what is best in societal decisions affecting health and safety risks. Risk Analysis 19, 439–452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bian, W.-Q. and Keller, L. R. 1999b. Patterns of fairness judgments in North America and the People's Republic of China. Journal of Consumer Psychology 8, 301–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bier, V. 2004. Implications of the research on expert overconfidence and dependence. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 85, 321–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bier, V. M., Haimes, Y. Y., Lambert, J. H., Matalas, N. C. and Zimmerman, R. 1999. A survey of approaches for assessing and managing the risk of extremes. Risk Analysis 19, 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolger, F., Stranieri, A., Wright, G. and Yearwood, J. 2011. Does the Delphi process lead to increased accuracy in group-based judgmental forecasts or does it simply induce consensus amongst judgmental forecasters?Technological Forecasting and Social Change 78, 1671–1680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borsuk, M. E., Stow, C. A. and Reckhow, K. H. 2003. An integrated approach to TMDL development for the Neuse River Estuary using a Bayesian probability network model (Neu-BERN).Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 129, 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bottom, W., Lakha, K. and Miller, G. J. 2002. Propagation of individual bias through group judgment: error in the treatment of asymmetrically informative signals. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 25, 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brier, G. W. 1950. Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability. Monthly Weather Review 78, 1–3.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broks, P. 2006. Understanding popular science. Open University Press, Maidenhead, England.Google Scholar
Brooks, M. 2007. Can you believe the weather?New Scientist issue 2588, 27 January 2007, 32–35.Google Scholar
Burgman, M. A. 2005. Risks and decisions for conservation and environmental management. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgman, M. A., Ferson, S. and Akçakaya, H. R. 1993. Risk assessment in conservation biology. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Burgman, M. A., Maslin, B. R., Andrewartha, D., Keatley, M. R., Boek, C. and McCarthy, M. 2000. Inferring threat from scientific collections: power tests and application to Western Australian Acacia species. In Ferson, S. and Burgman, M. A., editors. Quantitative methods for conservation biology. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
Burgman, M. A., McBride, M., Ashton, R., Speirs-Bridge, A., Flander, L., Wintle, B., Fidler, F., Rumpff, L. and Twardy, C. 2011a. Expert status and performance. PLoS ONE 6, e22998.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burgman, M.A., Carr, A., Godden, L., Gregory, R., McBride, M., Flander, L. and Maguire, L. 2011b. Redefining expertise and improving ecological judgement. Conservation Letters 4, 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. F. and Johnson, E. J. 1991. The process-performance paradox in expert judgment: how can experts know so much and predict so badly? In Ericsson, K. A. and Smith, J., editors. Towards a general theory of expertise: prospects and limits. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. M. 2002. Science and sustainable use: views of marine turtle conservation experts. Ecological Applications 12, 1229–1246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capen, E. C. 1976. The difficulty of assessing uncertainty. Journal of Petroleum Technology 28, 843–850.Google Scholar
Caponecchia, C. 2009. Strategies to improve the communication of probability information in risk analyses. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management 12, 380–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlon, C., Critto, A., Marcomini, A. and Nathanail, P. 2001. Risk based characterization of contaminated industrial site using multivariate and geostatistical tools. Environmental Pollution 111, 417–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, S. R., Brock, W. A. and Hanson, P. C. 1999. Ecological and social dynamics in simple models of ecosystem management. Social Systems Research Institute, University of Wisconsin.
Carr, A. J. L. 2004. Why do we all need community science?Society and Natural Resources 17, 1–9.Google Scholar
Chaloner, K., Church, T., Louis, T. A. and Matts, J. P. 1993. Graphical elicitation of a prior distribution for a clinical trial. The Statistician 42, 341–353.Google Scholar
Chamberlin, T. C. 1890. The method of multiple working hypotheses. Reprinted in Science 148, 754–759.Google Scholar
Chatterjee, S. K. 2003. Statistical thought: a perspective and history. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, K.-Y. and Plott, C. R. 2002. Information aggregation mechanisms: concepts, design and implementation for a sales forecasting problem. Social Science Working Paper 1131, California Institute of Technology.
Chesson, P. 1978. Predator–prey theory and variability. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 9, 323–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, M. T. H. 2006. Two approaches to the study of experts’ characteristics. In Ericsson, K. A, Charness, N., Feltovitch, P. J and Hoffman, R. R, editors. The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Christensen-Szalanski, J. and Bushyhead, J. 1981. Physicians use of probabilistic information in a real clinical setting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 7, 928–935.Google Scholar
Clemen, R. T. and Winkler, R. L. 1999. Combining probability distributions from experts in risk analysis. Risk Analysis 19, 187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cocozza, J. J. and Steadman, H. J. 1978. Prediction in psychiatry: an example of misplaced confidence in experts. Social Problems 25, 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H. M. and Evans, R. 2007. Rethinking expertise. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colyvan, M. 2001. Is probability the only coherent approach to uncertainty?Risk Analysis 28, 645–652.Google Scholar
Cooke, R. M. 1991. Experts in uncertainty: opinion and subjective probability in science. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cooke, R. M., El Saadany, S. and Xinzheng Huang, X. 2008. On the performance of social network and likelihood based expert weighting schemes. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Special Issue 93, 745–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, R. M. and Goossens, L. H. J. 2000. Procedures guide for structured expert judgement in accident consequence modelling. Radiation Protection and Dosimetry 90, 303–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, R. M. and Kraan, B. 2000. Processing expert judgements in accident consequence modelling. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 90, 311–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coolen, F. P. A. 2004. On the use of imprecise probabilities in reliability. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 20, 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cranshaw, J. and Kittur, A. 2011. The Polymath Projects: lessons from an experiment in large-scale online collaboration in mathematics. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1865–1874. ACM.
Crawford-Brown, D. J. 1999. Risk-based environmental decisions: method and culture. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, D. A., Mazmanian, P. E., Fordis, M., Van, H. R., Thorpe, K. E., Perrier, L. 2006. Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: a systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association 296, 1094–1102.Google ScholarPubMed
Dawes, R. M. 1979. The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making. American Psychologist 34, 571–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawes, R. M. 1994. House of cards: psychology and psychotherapy built on myth. Simon and Schuster, New York.Google Scholar
Dawid, A. P., DeGroot, M. H., Mortera, J., Cooke, R., French, S., Genest, C., Schervish, J., Lindley, D. V., McConway, K. J. and Winkler, R. L. 1995. Coherent combination of experts’ opinions. Test 4, 263–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Finetti, B. 1974. Theory of probability. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Deffenbacher, K. A. 1980. Eyewitness accuracy and confidence. Law and Human Behavior 4, 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J. and Kruger, J. 2003. Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science 12, 83–87.Google Scholar
Dieckmann, N. F., Mauro, R. and Slovic, P. 2010. The effects of presenting imprecise probabilities in intelligence forecasts. Risk Analysis 30, 987–1001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dommelen, A. V. 1999. Hazard identification of agricultural biotechnology: finding relevant questions. International Books, Utrecht.Google Scholar
Donelan, C. J., Wingfield, D. K., Crowder, L. B. and Wilcox, C. 2010. Using expert opinion surveys to rank threats to endangered species: a case study with sea turtles. Conservation Biology 24, 1586–1595.Google Scholar
Dror, I. E., Peron, A. E., Hind, S. L. and Charlton, D. 2005. When emotions get the better of us: the effect of contextual top-down processing on matching fingerprints. Applied Cognitive Psychology 19, 799–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dror, I. E. and Rosenthal, R. 2008. Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and biasability of fingerprint experts’ decision making. Journal of Forensic Sciences 53, 900–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer, J. S. and Miles, R. F. 1976. An actual application of collective choice theory to the selection of trajectories for the Mariner Jupiter/Saturn 1977 project. Operations Research 24, 220–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einhorn, H. J. and Hogarth, R. M. 1978. Confidence in judgment: persistence of the illusion of validity. Psychological Review 85, 395–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elmer, F., Seifert, I., Kreibich, H. and Thieke, A. H. 2010. A Delphi method expert survey to derive standards for flood damage data collection. Risk Analysis 30, 107–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elstein, A. S. 1995. Clinical reasoning in medicine. In: Higgs, J. J. M., editor. Clinical Reasoning in the Health Professions. Butterworth-Heinemann Limited, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
Engelhardt, H. and Caplan, H. 1986. Patterns of controversy and closure: the interplay of knowledge, values, and political forces. In Engelhardt, H. and Caplan, H., editors. Scientific controversies: case studies in the resolution and closure of disputes in science and technology. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Engelmann, J. B., Capra, C. M., Noussair, C. and Berns, G. S. 2009. Expert financial advice neurobiologically “offloads” financial decision-making under risk. PLoS ONE 4, e4957.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Englich, B. and Soder, K. 2009. Moody experts – how mood and expertise influence judgmental anchoring. Judgment and Decision Making 4, 41–50.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P. J. and Hoffman, R. R., editors. 2006. The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. Cambridge University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Food Safety Authority 2011. Guidance on expert knowledge elicitation in food and feed safety risk assessment. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy.
Evans, J. St. B. T. 2008. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 59, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evatts, J., Mieg, H. A. and Felt, U. 2006. Professionalization, scientific expertise, and elitism: a sociological perspective. In Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovitch, P. J. and Hoffman, R. R., editors. The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ezrahi, Y. 1990. The descent of Icarus: science and the transformation of contemporary democracy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Failing, L., Gregory, R. and Harstone, M. 2007. Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: a decision-focused approach. Ecological Economics 64, 47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO / WHO. 2001. Call for experts for the Joint FAO / WHO risk assessment activities in the areas of Campylobacter in broilers and Vibrio in seafood. Joint Expert Consultations on Risk Assessment of Microbiological Hazards in Food. Food and Nutrition Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Ferson, S., Kreinovich, V., Ginzburg, L., Myers, D. and Sentz, K. 2003. Constructing probability boxes and Dempster–Shafer structures. SAND Report, SAND2002-4015. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Feynman, R. P. 1986. Appendix F – Personal observations on the reliability of the Shuttle. In Hearing on the Space Shuttle Accident and the Rogers Commission Report. Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident. U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space, Washington, DC.
Figlewski, S. 1979. Subjective information and market efficiency in a betting market. Journal of Political Economy 87, 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, A. M. 1996. Comparing risks thoughtfully. Risk, 7, 325.Google Scholar
Fischer, F. 2000. Citizens, experts, and the environment. Duke University Press, Durham.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischhoff, B. 1994. Acceptable risk: a conceptual proposal. Risk: Health, Safety and Environment 1, 1–28.Google Scholar
Fischhoff, B. 1995. Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of progress. Risk Analysis 15, 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P. and Lichtenstein, S. 1982. Lay foibles and expert fables in judgements about risk. American Statistician 36, 240–255.Google Scholar
Fisk, D. 1998. Environmental science and environmental law. Journal of Environmental Law 10, 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flander, L., Dixon, W., McBride, M. and Burgman, M. 2012. Facilitated expert judgment of environmental risks: acquiring and analysing imprecise data. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management 16, 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forrester, Y. 2005. The quality of expert judgment: an interdisciplinary investigation. PhD Thesis. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maryland. URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1903/3267.
Franklin, J., Sisson, S. A., Burgman, M. A. and Martin, J. K. 2008. Evaluating extreme risks in invasion ecology: learning from banking compliance. Diversity and Distributions 14, 581–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freckelton, I. 1995. The challenge of junk psychiatry, psychology and science: the evolving role of the forensic expert. In Selby, H., editor. Tomorrow's law. Federation Press, Sydney.Google Scholar
French, S. 2011. Aggregating expert judgement. Revista De La Real Academia De Ciencias Exactas Fisicas Y Naturales Serie a-Matematicas 105, 181–206.
French, S. 2012. Expert judgment, meta-analysis and participatory risk analysis. Decision Analysis 9, 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freudenburg, W. R. 1992. Heuristics, biases, and the not-so-general publics: expertise and error in the assessment of risks. In Krimsky, S. and Golding, D., editors. Social theories of risk. Praeger Publishing, Westport, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Freudenburg, W. R. 1996. Risky thinking: irrational fears about risk and society. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 545, 44–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freudenburg, W. R. 1999. Tools for understanding the socioeconomic and political settings for environmental decision making. In Dale, V. H. and English, M. R., editors. Tools to aid environmental decision making. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Freudenburg, W. R., Coleman, C.-L., Gonzales, J. and Helgeland, C. 1996. Media coverage of hazard events: analyzing the assumptions. Risk Analysis 16, 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulero, S. M. 2009. System and estimator variables in eyewitness identification: a review (Chapter 3). In Krauss, D. A. and Lieberman, J. D., editors. Psychological expertise in court. Ashgate Publishing, Farnham.Google Scholar
Galton, F. 1907. Vox populi. Nature 75, 450–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galway, L. A. 2007. Subjective probability distribution elicitation in cost risk analysis. United States Airforce Report, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica.
Gans, J. and Palmer, A. 2004. Australian principles of evidence. Routledge Cavendish, Sydney.Google Scholar
Garthwaite, P. H., Kadane, J. B. and O'Hagan, A. 2005. Statistical methods for eliciting probability distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association 100, 680–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. 2002. Calculated risks: how to know when numbers deceive you. Simon and Schuster, New York.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. 2007. Gut feelings: the intelligence of the unconscious. Viking Press, New York.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Hertwig, R.van den Broek, E., Fasolo, B. and Katsikopoulos, K. V. 2005. A 30% chance of rain tomorrow: How does the public understand probabilistic weather forecasts?Risk Analysis 25, 623–629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M. and the ABC Research Group. 1999. Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Gigone, D. and Hastie, R. 1997. Proper analysis of the accuracy of group judgments. Psychological Bulletin 121, 149–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., and Kahneman, D. 2002. Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgement. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glimcher, P. W. and Rustichini, A. 2004. Neuroeconomics: the consilience of brain and decision. Science 306, 447–452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, L. R. 1965. Diagnosticians vs. diagnostic signs: the diagnosis of psychosis vs. neurosis from the MMPI. Psychological Monographs 79 (Whole No. 602).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldring, J. 2003. An introduction to statistical ‘evidence’. Australian Bar Review 23, 239–262.Google Scholar
Good, I. J. 1959. Kinds of probability. Science 129, 443–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, P. and Wright, G. 2010. The limits of forecasting methods in anticipating rare events. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 77, 355–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goossens, L. H. J. and Cooke, R. M. 2001. Expert judgement elicitation in risk assessment. In Linkov, I. and Palma-Oliveira, J., editors. Assessment and management of environmental risks. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Gordon, K. 1924. Group judgments in the field of lifted weights. Journal of Experimental Psychology 7, 398–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gowers, T. and Nielsen, M. 2009. Massively collaborative mathematics: the Polymath Project. Nature 461, 879–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graefe, A. and Armstrong, J. S. 2011. Comparing face-to-face meetings, nominal groups, Delphi and prediction markets on an estimation task. International Journal of Forecasting 27, 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, J. D. and Hammitt, J. K. 1996. Refining the CRA framework. In Davies, J. C., editor. Comparing environmental risks. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Gregory, R., Failing, L., Harstone, M., Long, G., McDaniels, T. and Ohlson, D. 2012. Structured decision making. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, R., Failing, L., Ohlson, D. and McDaniels, T. 2006. Some pitfalls of an overemphasis on science in environmental risk management decisions. Journal of Risk Research 9, 717–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, R., Lichtenstein, S. and MacGregor, D. 1993. The role of past states in determining reference points for policy decisions. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 55, 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, J. and Miller, S. 1998. Science in public: communication, culture, and credibility. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Green, K. C. and Armstrong, J. S. 2007. Global warming: forecasts by scientists versus scientific forecasting. Energy and Environment 18, 997–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grigg, A. E. 1958. Experience of clinicians and speech characteristics and statements of clients as variables in clinical judgment. Journal of Consulting Psychology 22, 315–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grove, W. M. and Meehl, P. E. 1996. Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: the clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2, 293–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, B. S., Snits, B. E. and Nelson, C. E. 2000. Clinical vs. mechanical prediction: a meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment 12, 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gullet, W. 2000. The precautionary principle in Australia: policy, law and potential precautionary EIAs. Risk: Health, Safety and Environment 11, 93–124.Google Scholar
Gumbel, E. J. 1958. Statistics of extremes. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Gustafson, D. H., Shukla, R. K., Delbecq, A. and Walster, G. W. 1973. A comparative study of differences in subjective likelihood estimates made by individuals, interacting groups, Delphi groups, and nominal groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 9, 280–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafson, L. L., Gustafson, D. H., Antognoli, M. C. and Remmenga, M. D. 2013. Integrating expert judgment in veterinary epidemiology: example guidance for disease freedom surveillance. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 109, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haack, S. 2001. An epistemologist in the bramble-bush: at the Supreme Court with Mr. Joiner. Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law 26, 217–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hacking, I. 1975. The emergence of probability: a philosophical study of early ideas about probability, induction and statistical inference. Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
Hall, S. S. 2011. Scientists on trial: at fault?Nature 477, 264–269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanson, R. 2006. Designing real terrorism futures. Public Choice 128, 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, A. 1986. Knowledge acquisition for expert systems. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Hayakawa, H., Fischbeck, P. S. and Fischhoff, B. 2000. Traffic accident statistics and risk perceptions in Japan and the United States. Accident Analysis and Prevention 32, 827–835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henrion, M. and Fischhoff, B. 1986. Assessing uncertainty in physical constants. American Journal of Physics 54, 791–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertwig, R. 2012. Tapping into the wisdom of the crowd – with confidence. Science 36, 303–304.Google Scholar
Herzog, S. M. and Hertwig, R. 2009. The wisdom of many in one mind. Psychological Science 20, 231–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
HeuerJr, R. J. 2005. Limits of intelligence analysis. Orbis 49, 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilborn, R. 1987. Living with uncertainty in resource management. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7, 1–5.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilborn, R. and Mangel, M. 1997. The ecological detective: confronting models with data. Monographs in Population Biology 28. Princeton University Press, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Hilgartner, S. 1990. The dominant view of popularization: conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science 20, 519–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, S., Fischbeck, P., Krupnick, A. and McWilliams, M. 2008. Informing risk-mitigation priorities using uncertainty measures derived from heterogeneous expert panels: a demonstration using foodborne pathogens. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 93, 687–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffrage, U., Gigerenzer, G., Krauss, S. and Martignon, L. 2002. Representation facilitates reasoning: what natural frequencies are and what they are not. Cognition 84, 343–352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hogarth, R. M. 2001. Educating intuition. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hogarth, R. M. 2005. Deciding analytically or trusting your intuition? The advantages and disadvantages of analytic and intuitive thought. In Betsch, T. and Haberstroh, S., editors. The routines of decision making. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Hong, L. and Page, S. E. 2004. Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 101, 16385–16389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoogendoorn, S., Oosterbeek, H. and van Praag, M. 2011. The impact of gender diversity on the performance of business teams: evidence from a field experiment. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper TI 2011–074/3. Amsterdam School of Economics, University of Amsterdam.
Hora, S. C. 1992. Acquisition of expert judgment: examples from risk assessment. Journal of Energy Engineering 118, 136–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hora, S. C. 2007. Eliciting probabilities from experts (Chapter 8). In Edwards, W., Miles, R. F. and Winterfeldt, D. von, editors. Advances in decision analysis. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horst, H. S., Dijkhuizen, A. A., Huirne, R. B. M. and De Leeuw, P. W. 1998. Introduction of contagious animal diseases into the Netherlands: elicitation of expert opinions. Livestock Production Science 53, 253–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imwinkelried, E. J. 1993. The Daubert decision: Frye is dead: long live the Federal Rules of Evidence. Trial 29, 60–65.Google Scholar
Inayatullah, S. 2008. Six pillars: futures thinking for transforming. Foresight 10, 4–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Monetary Fund. 2006. Global Financial Stability Report. World Economic and Financial Surveys, Washington.
Ioannidis, J. P. A. 2005a. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. Journal of the American Medical Association 294, 218–228.Google ScholarPubMed
Ioannidis, J. P. A. 2005b. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine 2, e124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ioannidis, J. P. A. 2008. Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology. 19, 640–648.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Irwin, A. 2001. Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science 10, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacob, A. 2011. How to build the global mathematics brain. New Scientist issue 2811, 4 May 2011, 10–11.
James, A., Low Choy, S. and Mengersen, K. 2010. Elicitator: an expert elicitation tool for regression in ecology. Environmental Modelling and Software 25, 129–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamtvedt, G., Young, J. M., Kristoffersen, D. T., O'Brien, M. A. and Oxman, A. D. 2006. Does telling people what they have been doing change what they do? A systematic review of the effects of audit and feedback. Quality and Safety in Health Care 15, 433–436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janis, I. L.Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascos. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Jasanoff, S. 2006. Transparency in public science: purposes, reasons, limits. Law and Contemporary Problems 69, 21.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. 2007. Technologies of humility. Nature 450, 33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaynes, E. T. 1976. Confidence intervals vs Bayesian intervals. In Harper, and Hooker, , editors. Foundations of probability theory, statistical inference, and statistical theories of science. Volume 2. D. Reidel Publishing, Dordrecht, Holland.Google Scholar
Johansson, P. O. 2002. On the definition and age-dependency of the value of a statistical life. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 25, 251–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. D. P. and Fowler, J. H. 2011. The evolution of overconfidence. Nature 477, 317–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, J. E. V. and Bruce, A. C. 2001. Calibration of subjective probability judgments in a naturalistic setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 85, 265–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. H. and Blair, J. A. 1983. Logical self-defense, 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Toronto.Google Scholar
Kadane, J. B., Dickeey, J., Winkler, R. L., Smith, W. and Peters, S. 1980. Interactive elicitation of opinion for a normal linear model. Journal of the American Statistical Association 75, 815–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahan, D. M. 2013. Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making 8, 407–424.Google Scholar
Kahan, D. M. 2015. Climate science communication and the measurement problem. Advances in Political Psychology 36, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, H. and Wiener, A. J. 1967. The year 2000: a framework for speculation. Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, New York.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. 1984. Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist 39, 342–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, J. 2002. Software glitch threw off mortality estimates. Science 296, 1945–1946.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kalof, L., Dietz, T., Guagnano, G. and Stern, P. C. 2002. Race, gender and environmentalism: the atypical values and beliefs of white men. Race, Gender and Class 9, 1–19.Google Scholar
Kammen, D. M. and Hassenzahl, D. M. 1999. Should we risk it? Exploring environmental, health, and technological problem solving. Princeton University Press, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Kaplan, S. 1992. ‘Expert opinion’ versus ‘expert opinions.’ Another approach to the problem of eliciting/combining/using expert opinion in PRA. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 35, 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, S. and Garrick, B. 1981. On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis 1, 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kardes, F. R. 2006. When should consumers and managers trust their intuition?Journal of Consumer Psychology 16, 20–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeney, R. L. and von Winterfeldt, D. 1991. Eliciting probabilities from experts in complex technical problems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 38, 191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, R. 1996. A new way to ask the experts: rating radioactive waste risks. Science 274, 913–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, N. L. and Tindale, R. S. 2004. Group performance and decision making.Annual Review of Psychology 55, 623–655.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khatib, F., DiMaio, F., Foldit Contenders Group, Foldit Void Crushers Group, Cooper, S., Kazmierczyk, M., Gilski, M., Krzywda, S., Zabranska, H., Pichova, I., Thompson, J., Popovic, Z., Jaskolski, M. and Baker, D. 2011. Crystal structure of a monomeric retroviral protease solved by protein folding game players. Nature Structural and Molecular Biology 18, 1175–1177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirsch, E. W. 1995. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals: active judicial scrutiny of scientific evidence. Food and Drug Law Journal 50, 213–234.Google Scholar
Klayman, J., Soll, J. B., Juslin, P. and Winman, A. 2006. Subjective confidence and the sampling of knowledge. In K. Fiedler and P. Juslin, editors. Information sampling and adaptive cognition. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 153–182.Google Scholar
Klir, G. J. and Harmanec, D. 1997. Types and measures of uncertainty. In Kacprzyk, J., Nurmi, H. and Fedrizzi, M., editors. Consensus under fuzziness. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.Google Scholar
Klir, G. J. and Wierman, M. J. 1998. Uncertainty-based information: elements of generalized information theory. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Kloprogge, P., van der Sluijs, J. and Wardekker, A. 2007. Uncertainty communication issues and good practice. Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation. Report NWS-E-2007–199. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Utrecht.
Knol, A. B., Slottje, P., van der Sluijs, J. P. and Lebret, E. 2010. The use of expert elicitation in environmental health impact assessment: a seven step procedure. Environmental Health 9, 19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Korb, K. B. and Nicholson, A. E. 2003. Bayesian artificial intelligence. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koriat, A. 2012. When two heads are better than one and why?Science 336, 360–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosinski, M., Bachrach, Y., Kasneci, G., Van-Gael, J. and Graepel, T. 2012. Crowd IQ: measuring the intelligence of crowdsourcing platforms. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual ACM Web Science Conference, 151–160. ACM.
Krinitzsky, E. L. 1993. Earthquake probability in engineering – Part 1: the use and misuse of expert opinion. Engineering Geology 33, 257–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruger, J. and Dunning, D. 2009. Unskilled and unaware: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Psychology 1, 30–46.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kunda, Z. 1990. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 108, 480–498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lakatos, I. 1976. Proofs and refutations. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laughlin, P. R. and Ellis, A. L. 1986. Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 22, 177–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, M., Goodwin, P., O'Connor, M. and Onkal, D. 2006. Judgmental forecasting: a review of progress over the last 25 years. International Journal of Forecasting 22, 493–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, J. D. 1900. The law of expert and opinion evidence, 2nd edition. T. H. Flood, Chicago.Google Scholar
Leadbeater, C. 2003. Amateurs: a 21st-century remake – social commentator Charles Leadbeater looks at the growing number of people in Britain taking a serious approach to pastime pursuits. RSA Journal 150, 22–25.Google Scholar
Lehrer, J. 2012. Groupthink: the brainstorming myth. The New Yorker 30, 12.
Lempert, R. J., Groves, D. G., Popper, S. W. and Bankes, S. C. 2006. A general, analytic method for generating robust strategies and narrative scenarios. Management Science 52, 514–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewandowsky, S. and Kirsner, K. 2000. Knowledge partitioning: context-dependent use of expertise. Memory and Cognition 28, 295–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Libby, R., Trotman, K. T. and Zimmer, I. 1987. Member variation, recognition of expertise, and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 72, 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B. and Phillips, L. D. 1982. Calibration of probabilities: the state of the art to 1980. In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A., editors. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Lin, S.-W. and Bier, V. M. 2008. A study of expert overconfidence. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 93, 711–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipinski, M., Froelicher, V., Atwood, E., Tseitlin, A., Franklin, B., Osterberg, L., Do, D. and Myers, J. 2002. Comparison of treadmill scores with physician estimates of diagnosis and prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease. American Heart Journal 143, 650–658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Low Choy, S., O'Leary, R. and Mengersen, K. 2009. Elicitation by design in ecology: using expert opinion to inform priors for Bayesian statistical models. Ecology 90, 265–277.Google Scholar
Luft, J. 1950. Implicit hypotheses and clinical predictions. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 5, 756–760.Google Scholar
Lyle, J. A. 2008. Collective problem solving: are the many smarter than the few?Durham Anthropology Journal 15, 23–58.Google Scholar
MacDonald, J. A., Small, M. J. and Norgan, M. G. 2008. Explosion probability of unexploded ordnance: expert beliefs. Risk Analysis 28, 825–841.Google ScholarPubMed
MacGregor, D. G. 2001. Decomposition for judgmental forecasting and estimation. In Armstrong, S., editor. Principles of forecasting: a handbook for researchers and practitioners. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.Google Scholar
MacMillan, D. C. and Marshall, K. 2006. The Delphi process – an expert-based approach to ecological modelling in data-poor environments. Animal Conservation 9, 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maguire, L. and Albright, E. A. 2005. Can behavioral decision theory explain risk-averse fire management decisions?Forest Ecology and Management 211, 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcot, B. G., Allen, C. S., Morey, S., Shively, D. and White, R. 2012. An expert panel approach to assessing potential effects of bull trout reintroduction on federally listed salmonids in the Clackamas River, Oregon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 32, 450–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, A. D., Quinn, K. M., Ruger, T. W. and Kim, P. T. 2004. Competing approaches to predicting supreme court decision making. Perspectives on Politics 2, 761–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mastrandrea, M. D., Field, C. B., Stocker, T. F., Edenhofer, O., Ebi, K. L., Frame, D. J., Held, H., Kriegler, E., Mach, K. J., Matschoss, P. R., Plattner, G.-K., Yohe, G. W. and Zwiers, F. W. 2010. Guidance note for lead authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on consistent treatment of uncertainties. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
McBride, M.F., Garnett, S.T., Szabo, J.K., Burbidge, A.H., Butchart, S.H.M., Christidis, L., Dutson, G., Ford, H.A., Loyn, R.H., Watson, D.M., and Burgman, M.A. 2012a. Structured elicitation of expert judgments for threatened species assessment: a case study on a continental scale using email. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3, 906–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBride, M.F., Fidler, F. and Burgman, M.A. 2012b. Evaluating the accuracy and calibration of expert predictions under uncertainty: predicting the outcomes of ecological research. Diversity and Distributions 18, 782–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKaughan, D. J. and Drake, J. M. 2012. Representing vague opinion. Principia 16, 341–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meehl, P. E. 1954. Clinical versus statistical prediction: a theoretical analysis and review of the evidence. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meehl, P. E. 1986. Causes and effects of my disturbing little book. Journal of Personality Assessment 50, 370–375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meer, E. 2001. Using comparative risk to set pollution prevention priorities in New York State: a formula for inaction: a critical analysis of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Comparative Risk Project. A report from the New York State Assembly Legislative Commission on Toxic Substances and Hazardous Wastes. Assemblyman Steve Englebright, Chair. New York.
Mellers, B., Stone, E., Murray, T. et al. 2015. Identifying and cultivating superforecasters as a method of improving probabilistic predictions. Perspectives on Psychological Science 10, 267–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, M. A. and Booker, J. M. 1990. Eliciting and analyzing expert judgment: a practical guide. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Division of Systems Research, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
Miller, B. 2013. When is consensus knowledge based? Distinguishing shared knowledge from mere agreement. Synthese, 190, 1293–1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, D. A. and Healy, P. J. 2008. The trouble with overconfidence. Psychological Review 115, 502–517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, D. A., Tanlu, L. and Bazerman, M. H. 2010. Conflict of interest and the intrusion of bias. Judgment and Decision Making 5, 37–53.Google Scholar
Morgan, M. G. 1993. Risk analysis and management. Scientific American 269, 32–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, M. G. 2014. Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 111, 7176–7184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Lave, L. and Fischbeck, P. 1996. A proposal for ranking risk within Federal agencies. In Davies, J. C., editor. Comparing environmental risks. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Morgan, M. G. and Henrion, M. 1990. Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullainathan, S., Noeth, M. and Schoar, A. 2012. The market for financial advice: an audit study. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 17929. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Munnichs, G. 2004. Whom to trust? Public concerns, late modern risks, and expert trustworthiness. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17, 113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, A. H. 1993. What is a good forecast? An essay on the nature of goodness in weather forecasting. American Meterological Society 8, 281–293.Google Scholar
Murphy, A. H. and Winkler, R. L. 1977. Can weather forecasters formulate reliable probability forecasts of precipitation and temperature?National Weather Digest 2, 2–9.Google Scholar
Murphy, A. H. and Winkler, R. L. 1984. Probability forecasting in meteorology. Journal of the American Statistical Association 79, 489–500.Google Scholar
Murray, J. V., Goldizen, A. W., O'Leary, R. A., McAlpine, C. A., Possingham, H. P. and Choy, S. L. 2009. How useful is expert opinion for predicting the distribution of a species within and beyond the region of expertise? A case study using brush-tailed rockwallabiesPetrogale penicillata. Journal of Applied Ecology 46, 842–851.Google Scholar
Neff, C. and Hueter, R. 2013. Science, policy, and the public discourse of shark ‘attack’: a proposal for reclassifying human-shark interactions. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 3, 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemeth, C. J., Connell, J. B., Rogers, J. D. and Brown, K. S. 2001. Improving decision making by means of dissent. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 31, 48–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, M. 2000. Making better environmental decisions: an alternative to risk assessment. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
O'Hagan, A. 2012. Probabilistic uncertainty specification: overview, elaboration techniques and their application to a mechanistic model of carbon flux. Environmental Modelling and Software 36, 35–48.Google Scholar
O'Hagan, A., Buck, C. E., Daneshkhah, A., Eiser, R., Garthwaite, P., Jenkinson, D., Oakley, J. and Rakow, T. 2006. Uncertain judgements: eliciting experts’ probabilities. Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Hagan, A. and Oakley, J. E. 2004. Probability is perfect, but we can't elicit it perfectly. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 85, 239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Leary, R. A., Low-Choy, S., Murray, J. V., Kynn, M., Denham, R., Martin, T. G. and Mengersen, K. 2009. Comparison of three expert elicitation methods for logistic regression on predicting the presence of the threatened brush-tailed rock-wallabyPetrogale penicillata. Environmetrics 20, 379–398.Google Scholar
O'Neill, S. J., Osborn, T. J., Hulme, M., Lorenzoni, I. and Watkinson, A. R. 2008. Using expert knowledge to assess uncertainties in future polar bear populations under climate change. Journal of Applied Ecology 45, 1649–1659.Google Scholar
Önkal, D., Yates, J. F., Simga-Mugan, C. and Oztin, S. 2003. Professional vs. amateur judgment accuracy: the case of foreign exchange rates. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 91, 169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peachy, R., Spiegelhalter, D. and Marteau, T. M. 2013. Impact of plain packaging of tobacco products on smoking in adults and children: an elicitation of international experts’ estimates. BMC Public Health 13, 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peel, J. 2005. The precautionary principle in practice: environmental decision-making and scientific uncertainty. Federation Press, Annandale, New South Wales.Google Scholar
Perfect, T. J. 2004. The role of self-rated ability in the accuracy of confidence judgements in eyewitness memory and general knowledge. Applied Cognitive Psychology 18, 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perhac, R. M. 1998. Comparative risk assessment: where does the public fit in?Science, Technology, and Human Values 23, 221–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pidgeon, N., Harthorn, B., Bryant, K. and Rogers-Hayden, R. 2008. Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nature Nanotechnology 4, 95–98.Google ScholarPubMed
Plous, S. 1993. The psychology of judgment and decision making. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Poff, N. L., Allan, J. D., Palmer, M. A., Hart, D. D., Richter, B. D., Arthington, A. H., Rogers, K. H., Meyer, J. L. and Stanford, J. A. 2003. River flows and water wars: emerging science for environmental decision making. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1, 298–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pons, J. M. V., Borras, J. M., Espinas, J. A., Moreno, V., Cardona, M. and Granados, A. 1999. Subjective versus statistical model assessment of mortality risk in open heart surgical procedures. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 67, 635–640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Potchen, E. J. 2006. Measuring observer performance in chest radiology: some experiences. Journal of the American College of Radiology 3, 423–432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poynard, T., Munteanu, M., Ratziu, V., Benhamou, Y., Di Martino, V., Taieb, J. and Opolon, P. 2002. Truth survival in clinical research: an evidence-based requiem. Annals of Internal Medicine 136, 888–895.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Preston, B. J. 2003. Science and the law: evaluating evidentiary reliability. Australian Bar Review 23, 263–295.Google Scholar
Priest, G. and Thomason, N. 2007. 60% Proof. Australasian Journal of Logic 5, 89–100.Google Scholar
Punt, A. E. and Hilborn, R. 1997. Fisheries stock assessment and decision analysis: the Bayesian approach. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 7, 35–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regan, H. M., Colyvan, M. and Burgman, M. A. 2000. A proposal for fuzzy IUCN categories and criteria. Biological Conservation 92, 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regan, H. M., Colyvan, M. and Burgman, M. A. 2002. A taxonomy and treatment of uncertainty for ecology and conservation biology. Ecological Applications 12, 618–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regan, H. M., Lupia, R., Drinnan, A. N. and Burgman, M. A. 2001. The currency and tempo of extinction. American Naturalist 157, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reischman, R. 2002. Critical care cardiovascular nurse expert and novice diagnostic cue utilization. Journal of Advanced Nursing 39, 24–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rennie, D. and Chalmers, I. 2009. Assessing authority. Journal of the American Medical Association 301, 1819–1821.Google ScholarPubMed
Rohrmann, B. 1994. Risk perception of different societal groups: Australian findings and cross-national comparisons. Australian Journal of Psychology 46, 150–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohrmann, B. 1998. The risk notion: epistemological and empirical considerations. In Stewart, M. G. and Melchers, R. E., editors. Integrated risk assessment. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Rothlisberger, J. D., Lodge, D. M., Cooke, R. M. and Finnoff, D. C. 2010. Future declines of the binational Laurentian Great Lakes fisheries: the importance of environmental and cultural change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8, 239–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, G. and Wright, G. 2001. Expert opinions in forecasting: the role of the Delphi technique. In Armstrong, J. S., editor. Principles of forecasting: a handbook for researchers and practitioners. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.Google Scholar
Ruckelshaus, M. H., Levin, P., Johnson, J. B. and Kareiva, P. M. 2002. The Pacific Salmon wars: what science brings to the challenge of recovering species. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33, 665–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruger, T. W., Kim, P. T., Martin, A. D. and Quinn, K. M. 2004. The Supreme Court forecasting project: legal and political science approaches to predicting Supreme Court decisionmaking. Columbia Law Review 104, 1150–1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russo, J. E. and Schoemaker, P. J. H. 1992. Managing overconfidence. Sloan Management Review 33, 7–17.Google Scholar
Savage, L. J. 1972. The foundations of statistics. Dover Publications, New York.Google Scholar
Schultz-Hardt, S., Brodbeck, F. C., Mojzisch, A., Kerschreiter, R. and Frey, D. 2006. Group decision making in hidden profile situations: dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91, 1080–1093.Google Scholar
Schultze, T., Mojzisch, A. and Schulz-Hardt, S. 2012. Why groups perform better than individuals at quantitative judgment tasks: group-to-individual transfer as an alternative to differential weighting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 118, 24–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schum, D. A. and Morris, J. R. 2007. Assessing the competence and credibility of human sources of intelligence evidence: contributions from law and probability. Law, Probability and Risk 6, 247–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sentz, K. and Ferson, S. 2002. Combination of evidence in Dempster-Shafer theory. SAND Report, SAND2002-0835. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Shaffer, M. L. 1987. Minimum viable populations: coping with uncertainty. In Soulé, M. E., editor. Viable populations for conservation.Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shanteau, J. 1992a. Competence in experts: the role of task characteristics. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 53, 252–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanteau, J. 1992b. How much information does an expert use? Is it relevant?Acta Psychologica 81, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipley, B. 2000. Cause and correlation in biology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrader-Frechette, K. 1996a. Methodological rules for four classes of scientific uncertainty. In Lemons, J., editor. Scientific uncertainty and environmental problem solving. Blackwell, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Shrader-Frechette, K. 1996b. Value judgments in verifying and validating risk assessment models. In Cothern, C. R., editor. Handbook for environmental risk decision making: values, perceptions and ethics. CRC Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton.Google Scholar
Simon, H. 1959. Theories for decision-making in economic and behavioral science. The American Economic Review 49, 253–283.Google Scholar
Slovic, P. 1999. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis 19, 689–701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. 1984. Perception and acceptability of risk from energy systems. In Fruendenburg, W. R. and Rosa, E. A., editors. Public reactions to nuclear power: are there critical masses?AAAS/Westview, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
Slovic, P., Monahan, J. and MacGregor, D. G. 2000. Violence risk assessment and risk communication: the effects of using actual cases, providing instruction, and employing probability versus frequency formats. Law and Human Behavior 24, 271–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soll, J. B. and Klayman, J. 2004. Overconfidence in interval estimates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30, 299.Google ScholarPubMed
Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K. B., Tignor, M. and Miller, H. L. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York.
Speirs-Bridge, A., Fidler, F., McBride, M., Flander, L., Cumming, G. and Burgman, M. 2010. Reducing overconfidence in the interval judgments of experts. Risk Analysis 30, 512–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spetzler, C. S. and Staelvonholstein, C. A. S. 1975. Probability encoding in decision analysis. Management Science 22, 340–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spiegelhalter, D. J., Harris, N. L. and Franklin, R. C. G. 1994. Empirical evaluation of prior beliefs about frequencies: methodology and a case study in congenital heart disease. Journal of the American Statistical Association 89, 435–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spruijt, P., Knol, A. B., Vasileiadou, E., Devilee, J., Lebret, E. and Petersen, A. C. 2014. Roles of scientists as policy advisers on complex issues: a literature review. Environmental Science and Policy 40, 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stasser, G. and Titus, W. 1985. Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: biased information sampling during discussion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48, 1467–1478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, M. E., Goodwin, B. W. and Andres, T. H. 1993. Deriving parameter probability density functions. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 42, 271–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, P. C. and Fineberg, H., editors. 1996. Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., Wagner, R. K. and Okagaki, L. 1993. Practical intelligence: the nature and role of tacit knowledge in work and at school. In Puckett, J. M. and Reese, H. W., editors. Mechanisms of everyday cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillside, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Stewart, M. G. and Melchers, R. E. 1997. Probabilistic risk assessment of engineering systems. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Stirling, A. 2007. A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 4, 707–719.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stow, C. A. and Borsuk, M. E. 2003. Enhancing causal assessment of estuarine fishkills using graphical models. Ecosystems 6, 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surowiecki, J. 2005. The wisdom of crowds: why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies and nations. Doubleday, New York.Google Scholar
Taylor, S. E. and Brown, J. D. 1988. Illusion and well-being: a social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin 103, 193–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teigen, K. H. and Jørgensen, M. 2005. When 90% confidence intervals are 50% certain: on the credibility of credible intervals. Applied Cognitive Psychology 19, 455–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. 2005. Expert political opinion, how good is it? How can we know?Princeton University Press, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. and Mellers, B. A. 2011. Intelligent management of intelligence agencies. American Psychologist 66, 542–554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thaler, R. H. 1991. Quasi-rational economics. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
Todd, P. M. and Gigerenzer, G. 2007. Environments that make us smart. Current Directions in Psychological Science 16, 167–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, S. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tufte, E. 1997. Visual explanations: images and quantities, evidence and narrative. Graphics Press, Cheshire, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. 1971. Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin 76, 105–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. 1974. Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. 1985. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. In G. Wright, editor. Behavioral decision making, pp. 25–41. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. 1982a. Belief in the law of small numbers. In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A., editors. Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, pp. 23–30.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. 1982b. Causal schemata in judgments under uncertainty. In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., Tversky, A., editors. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ulery, B. T., Hicklin, R. A., Buscaglia, J. and Roberts, M. A. 2011. Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 108, 7733–7738.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valverde, L. J. 2001. Expert judgment resolution in technically-intensive policy disputes. In Linkov, I. and Palma-Oliveira, J., editors. Assessment and management of environmental risks. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Van der Heijden, K. 1996. Scenarios: the art of strategic conversation. Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
van Frassen, B. 1984. Belief and the will. Journal of Philosophy 81, 235–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gelder, T. 2013. Argument mapping. In H. Pashler, editor. Encyclopedia of the mind. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanackere, G. 1999. Minimizing ambiguity and paraconsistency. Logique et analyse 165, 39–160.Google Scholar
Veatch, R. M. 1991. Consensus of expertise: the role of consensus of experts in formulating public policy and estimating facts. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16, 427–445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verran, H. 2002. Transferring strategies of land management: indigenous land owners and environmental scientists. Research in Science and Technology Studies, Knowledge and Society 13, 155–181.Google Scholar
Vose, D. 1996. Quantitative risk analysis: a guide to Monte Carlo simulation modelling. Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
Wade, P. R. 2000. Bayesian methods in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 14, 1308–1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagenaar, W. A. and Keren, G. B. 1986. Does the expert know? The reliability of predictions and confidence ratings of experts. In Hollnagel, E. H., Mancini, G. and Woods, D. D., editors. Intelligent decision support in process environments. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
Walley, P. 1991. Statistical reasoning with imprecise probabilities. Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walley, P. 2000. Towards a unified theory of imprecise probability. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 24, 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walley, P. and De Cooman, G. 2001. A behavioral model for linguistic uncertainty. Information Sciences 134, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallsten, T. S. and Budescu, D. V. 1983. Encoding subjective probabilities: a psychological and psychometric review. Management Science 29, 151–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallsten, T. S., Budescu, D. V., Erev, I. and Diederich, A. 1997. Evaluating and combining subjective probability estimates. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 10, 243–268.3.0.CO;2-M>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, D. 1997. Appeal to expert opinion: arguments from authority. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park.Google Scholar
Weber, E. U., Blais, A.-R., and Betz, N. E. 2002. A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 15, 263–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webler, T., Levine, D., Rakel, H. and Renn, O. 1991. A novel approach to reducing uncertainty: the Delphi group. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 39, 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, D. J. and Shanteau, J. 2012. Decloaking the privileged expert. Journal of Management and Organization 18, 300–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welke, K. F., O'Brien, S. M., Peterson, E. D., Ungerleider, R. M., Jacobs, M. L. and Jacobs, J. P. 2009. The complex relationship between pediatric cardiac surgical case volumes and mortality rates in a national clinical database. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 137, 1133–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Windschitl, P. D. 2002. Judging the accuracy of a likelihood judgment: the case of smoking risk. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 15, 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winkler, R. L. and Poses, R. M. 1993. Evaluating and combining physicians’ probabilities of survival in an intensive care unit. Management Science 39, 1526–1543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wintle, B. C. 2013. Making Decisions When Estimates Conflict: Improving Judgements in Environmental Science. PhD Thesis, University of Melbourne.
Wintle, B., Mascaro, M., Fidler, F., McBride, M., Burgman, M., Flander, L., Saw, G., Twardy, C., Lyon, A. and Manning, B. 2012. The intelligence game: assessing Delphi groups and structured question formats. In Corkill, J., Coole, M. and Valli, C., editors. Proceedings of the 5th Australian Security and Intelligence Conference. pp. 14–26. Security Research Institute, Edith Cowan University.Google Scholar
Wintle, B. C., Fidler, F. M. and Burgman, M. A. 2013b. The trial of scientists at L'Aquila: Lessons for risk communication. Risk Analysis (in review).Google Scholar
Wise, G. 1976. The accuracy of technological forecasts, 1890–1940. Futures 8, 411–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WMD Commission. 2005. The commission on the intelligence capabilities of the United States regarding weapons of mass destruction. March 31, 2005. US Government 374. In Wheaton, K. and Chido, D. 2007. Evaluating Intelligence. Competitive Intelligence Magazine 10, 2–19.
Wolfgang, P. 2002. Witness ‘conferencing’. Arbitration International 18, 47–58.Google Scholar
Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N. and Malone, T. W. 2010. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330, 686–688.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, G., Bolger, F. and Rowe, G. 2002. An empirical test of the relative validity of expert and lay judgments of risk. Risk Analysis 22, 1107–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wynne, B. 1996. May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In Lash, S., Szerszynski, B. and Wynne, B., editors. Risk, environment and modernity: towards a new ecology. Sage Publications, London.Google Scholar
Yearley, S. 2000. Making systematic sense of public discontents with expert knowledge: two analytical approaches and a case study. Public Understanding of Science 9, 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zadeh, L. A. 1986. A simple view of the Dempster–Shafer theory of evidence and its implication for the rule of combination. The AI Magazine 1986, 85–90.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Mark A. Burgman, University of Melbourne
  • Book: Trusting Judgements
  • Online publication: 05 November 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316282472.008
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Mark A. Burgman, University of Melbourne
  • Book: Trusting Judgements
  • Online publication: 05 November 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316282472.008
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Mark A. Burgman, University of Melbourne
  • Book: Trusting Judgements
  • Online publication: 05 November 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316282472.008
Available formats
×