Hammond (1996) argued that much of the research in the field of judgment and decision making (JDM) can be categorized as focused on either coherence or correspondence (C&C) and that, in order to understand the findings of the field, one needs to understand the differences between these two criteria. Hammond’s claim is that conclusions about the competence of judgments and decisions will depend upon the selection of coherence or correspondence as the criterion (Hammond, 2008). First, I provide an overview of the terms coherence and correspondence (C&C) as philosophical theories of truth and relate them to the field of JDM. Second, I provide an example of Hammond’s claim by examining literature on base rate neglect. Third, I examine Hammond’s claim as it applies to the broader field of JDM. Fourth, I critique Hammond’s claim and suggest that refinements to the C&C distinction are needed. Specifically, the C&C distinction 1) is more accurately applied to criteria than to researchers, 2) should be refined to include two important types of coherence (inter and intrapersonal coherence) and 3) neglects the third philosophical theory of truth, pragmatism. Pragmatism, as a class of criteria in JDM, is defined as goal attainment. In order to provide the most complete assessment of human judgment possible, and understand different findings in the field of JDM, all three criteria should be considered.

This paper introduces historical aspects of the concepts correspondence and coherence with emphasis on the nineteenth century when key aspects of modern science were emerging. It is not intended to be a definitive history of the concepts of correspondence and coherence as they have been used across the centuries in the field of inquiry that we now call science. Rather it is a brief history that highlights the apparent origins of the concepts and provides a discussion of how these concepts contributed to two important science related controversies. The first relates to aspects of evolution in which correspondence and coherence, as competing theories of truth, played a central role. The controversy about evolution continues into the beginning of the twenty-first century in forms that are recognizably similar to those of the middle of the nineteenth century. The second controversy relates to the etiology of blood-born infections (sepsis) during childbirth (childbed fever). In addition to correspondence and coherence, the authors introduce other theories of truth and discuss an evolutionarily cogent theory of truth, the pragmatic theory of truth.

Many controversies in medical science can be framed as tension between a coherence approach (which seeks logic and explanation) and a correspondence approach (which emphasizes empirical correctness). In many instances, a coherence-based theory leads to an understanding of disease that is not supported by empirical evidence. Physicians and patients alike tend to favor the coherence approach even in the face of strong, contradictory correspondence evidence. Examples include the management of atrial fibrillation, treatment of acute bronchitis, and the use of Vitamin E to prevent heart disease. Despite the frequent occurrence of controversy stemming from coherence-correspondence conflicts, medical professionals are generally unaware of these terms and the philosophical traditions that underlie them. Learning about the coherence-correspondence distinction and using the best of both approaches could not only help reconcile controversy but also lead to striking advances in medical science.

Research endeavors to determine the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) have yielded mixed results. The conflicting evaluations are largely due to the different metrics used to assess the validity of judgments made using PtDAs. The different approaches can be characterized by Hammond’s (1996) two frameworks for evaluating judgments: correspondence and coherence. This paper reviews the literature on the effectiveness of PtDAs and recasts this argument as a renewed debate between these two meta-theories of judgment. Evaluation by correspondence criteria involves measuring the impact of patient decision aids on metrics for which there are objective, external, and empirically justifiable values. Evaluation on coherence criteria involves assessing the degree to which decisions follow the logical implications of internal, possibly subjective, value systems/preferences. Coherence can exist absent of correspondence and vice versa. Therefore, many of the seemingly conflicting results regarding the effectiveness of PtDAs can be reconciled by considering that the two meta-theories contribute unique perspectives. We argue that one approach cannot substitute for the other, and researchers should not deny the value of either approach. Furthermore, we suggest that future research evaluating PtDAs include both correspondence and coherence criteria.

I show how the coherence/correspondence distinction can inform the conversation about decision methods for engineering design. Some engineers argue for the application of multi-attribute utility theory while others argue for what they call heuristics. To clarify the differences among methods, I first ask whether each method aims at achieving coherence or correspondence. By analyzing statements in the design literature, I argue that utility theory aims at achieving coherence and heuristics aim at achieving correspondence. Second, I ask if achieving coherence always implies achieving correspondence. It is important to provide an answer because while in design the objective is correspondence, it is difficult to assess it, and coherence that is easier to assess is used as a surrogate. I argue that coherence does not always imply correspondence in design and that this is also the case in problems studied in judgment and decision-making research. Uncovering the conditions under which coherence implies, or does not imply, correspondence is a topic where engineering design and judgment and decision-making research might connect.

In this paper, I trace the evolution of the aircraft cockpit as an example of the transformation of a probabilistic environment into an ecological hybrid, that is, an environment characterized by both probabilistic and deterministic features and elements. In the hybrid ecology, the relationships among correspondence and coherence strategies and goals and cognitive tactics on the continuum from intuition to analysis become critically important. Intuitive tactics used to achieve correspondence in the physical world do not work in the electronic world. Rather, I make the case that judgment and decision making in a hybrid ecology requires coherence as the primary strategy to achieve correspondence, and that this process requires a shift in tactics from intuition toward analysis.

Using a cognitive task (mental calculation) and a perceptual-motor task (stylized golf putting), we examined differential proficiency using the CWS index and several other quantitative measures of performance. The CWS index (Weiss & Shanteau, 2003) is a coherence criterion that looks only at internal properties of the data without incorporating an external standard. In Experiment 1, college students (n = 20) carried out 2- and 3-digit addition and multiplication problems under time pressure. In Experiment 2, experienced golfers (n = 12), also college students, putted toward a target from nine different locations. Within each experiment, we analyzed the same responses using different methods. For the arithmetic tasks, accuracy information (mean absolute deviation from the correct answer, MAD) using a coherence criterion was available; for golf, accuracy information using a correspondence criterion (mean deviation from the target, also MAD) was available. We ranked the performances of the participants according to each measure, then compared the orders using Spearman’s rs. For mental calculation, the CWS order correlated moderately (rs =.46) with that of MAD. However, a different coherence criterion, degree of model fit, did not correlate with either CWS or accuracy. For putting, the ranking generated by CWS correlated .68 with that generated by MAD. Consensual answers were also available for both experiments, and the rankings they generated correlated highly with those of MAD. The coherence vs. correspondence distinction did not map well onto criteria for performance evaluation.

Numerical predictions are of central interest for both coherence-based approaches to judgment and decisions — the Heuristic and Biases (HB) program in particular — and to correspondence-based approaches — Social Judgment Theory (SJT). In this paper I examine the way these two approaches study numerical predictions by reviewing papers that use Cue Probability Learning (CPL), the central experimental paradigm for studying numerical predictions in the SJT tradition, while attempting to look for heuristics and biases. The theme underlying this review is that both bias-prone heuristics and adaptive heuristics govern subjects’ predictions in CPL. When they have little experience to guide them, subjects fall prey to relying on bias-prone natural heuristics, such as representativeness and anchoring and adjustment, which are the only prediction strategies available to them. But, as they acquire experience with the prediction task, these heuristics are abandoned and replaced by ecologically valid heuristics.