100% tevredenheidsgarantie Direct beschikbaar na je betaling Lees online óf als PDF Geen vaste maandelijkse kosten
logo-home
Eerder door jou gezocht
Eerder door jou gezocht
logo
Talent Development & Creativity Summary of Dawes (Week 3): The Robust Beauty of Improper Linear Models in Decision Making €2,99
In winkelwagen
Snel navigeren naar
Voorbeeld
  2.  
  3. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (RuG)
  4.  
  5. Talent Development & Creativity (PSMOB7)

Samenvatting

Talent Development & Creativity Summary of Dawes (Week 3): The Robust Beauty of Improper Linear Models in Decision Making
 1 keer verkocht

Summary of: Dawes, R. M. (1979). The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making. American Psychologist, 34(7), 571–582.

Voorbeeld 1 van de 2  pagina's

Document informatie

  • 19 oktober 2021
  • 2
  • 2020/2021
  • Samenvatting

Onderwerpen

Geschreven voor

Alle documenten voor dit vak (25)

Verkoper

avatar-seller
EllaBergmann

Ontvangen beoordelingen

Voorbeeld van de inhoud

The Robust Beauty of Improper Linear Models in Decision Making – Dawes

• even improper linear models may be superior to clinical predictions
• proper linear model: weights given to the predictor variables are chosen in such a way as to
optimize the relationship between the prediction and the criterion (e.g. regression analysis)
◦ Example: ratings of graduate students by faculty (outstanding, above average, average,
below average, dropped out of program in academic difficulty); faculty ratings were
predicted from a proper linear model based on the student's Graduate Record
Examination (GRE) score, the student's undergraduate grade point average (GPA), and a
measure of the selectivity of the student's undergraduate institution→ correlation with
model’s prediction is higher than correlation with clinical prediction but both
correlations low (interpret the findings as meaning that while the low correlation of the
model indicates that linear modeling is deficient as a method, the even lower correlation
of the judges indicates only that the wrong judges were used)
• Improper Lineal model: weights chosen by some nonoptimal method → chosen to be
equal, chosen on basis of intuition of person making prediction, chosen randomly
◦ may have great utility→ very crude improper linear model predicts a very important
variable: judgments about marital happiness
• statistical model may integrate the information in an optimal manner, but it is always the
individual (judge, clinician, subjects) who chooses variables → linear model cannot replace
the expert in deciding such things
◦ people—especially the experts in a field—are much better at selecting and coding
information than they are at integrating it (e.g. expert chess player can code the board in
an appropriate way to see the proper moves that distinguish a grand master from the
expert from the novice)
→ linear models work because people are good at picking out the right predictor variables and at
coding them in such a way that they have a conditionally monotone relationship with the criterion,
however, people are bad at integrating information from diverse and comparable sources, wherea
proper linear models are good at such integration when the predictions have a conditionally
monotone relationship to the criterion
• not possible construct a proper linear model in some situations (e.g. inadequate sample size)
◦ standard regression analysis cannot be used in situations where there is not a decent ratio
of observations to predictors
◦ cannot be used in situations in which there are no measurable criterion variables (e.g. no
proper conceptualizing of variable as “professional self-actualization”)
• bootstrapping (building improper linear model): process is to build a proper linear model of
an expert's judgments about an outcome criterion and then to use that linear model in place
of the judge → paramorphic representations (judges' psychological processes did not
involve computing an implicit or explicit weighted average of input variables, but that it
could be simulated by such a weighting) consistently do better than the judges from which
they were derived
• Bootstrapping has turned out to be pervasive (e.g. Goldenberg MMPI study, Dawes study;
only Libby found loan officers were better than the paramorphic representations)
• Why does bootstrapping work? → its success arises from the fact that a linear model distills
underlying policy (in the implicit weights) from otherwise variable behavior (e.g.,
judgments affected by context effects or extraneous variables)
• Study to test random linear models: on average, random linear models perform about as well
as the paramorphic models of the judges → linear model are robust over deviations from
optimal weighting (bootstrapping finding has simply been a reaffirmation of the earlier
finding that proper linear models are superior to human judgment)
◦ Weights that are near to optimal level produce almost the sameoutput as do optimal beta
weights → Because the expert judge knows at least something about the direction of the

Dit zijn jouw voordelen als je samenvattingen koopt bij Stuvia:

Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews

Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews

Studenten hebben al meer dan 850.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet jij zeker dat je de beste keuze maakt!

In een paar klikken geregeld

In een paar klikken geregeld

Geen gedoe — betaal gewoon eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of je Stuvia-tegoed en je bent klaar. Geen abonnement nodig.

Direct to-the-point

Direct to-the-point

Studenten maken samenvattingen voor studenten. Dat betekent: actuele inhoud waar jij écht wat aan hebt. Geen overbodige details!

Veelgestelde vragen

Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?

Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.

Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?

Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.

Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?

Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper EllaBergmann. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.

Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?

Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €2,99. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.

Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?

4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 66184 samenvattingen verkocht

Opgericht in 2010, al 15 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen

Begin nu gratis

Laatst bekeken door jou

Samenvatting ·

(0)

Samenvatting - Farmacologie (TLSC-DOFAR4V-21)
€2,99  1x  verkocht
  • (0)
In winkelwagen
Toegevoegd