Abstract
A diagnostic task was constructed in which there were four hypotheses. Subjects had to assess the probable truth of each hypothosis and revise their assessments as evidence accumulated. Previous investigations have indicated that subjects are inefficient in tasks of this kind because they undervalue evidence. It is shown that although this is generally true a few subjects make accurate probability revisions. A primacy effect was demonstrated and it was also shown that subjects find it difficult to combine evidence from two sources when these appear to be disparate

This publication has 5 references indexed in Scilit: