General conditions for the success of bootstrapping models

Linear models which fit regression equations to clinical judgments. then use the fitted parts of judgments as "bootstrapped" judgments, have outperformed clinical judgments in many tasks. Empirically, the phenomenon has been pervasive, but general conditions for the success of bootstrapping models have never been explicitly linked to cross-study data. This link, combined with psychologically plausible evidence about the relationships between judgmental variables, shows that bootstrapping will improve judgments slightly under almost any realistic task conditions. This result allows one to apply bootstrapping blindly in cases where criterion information is missing or vague (precisely the cases where bootstrapping models are useful), and be confident that predictions are being improved. A simple comparison of bootstrapping models with equal weighting models is also made, but general conditions for relative success of those two models are not specified.

[1]  L. R. Goldberg.  Man versus model of man: just how conflicting is that evidence? , 1976 .

[2]  Detlof von Winterfeldt,et al.  Flat Maxima in Linear Optimization Models , 1973 .

[3]  N. Wiggins,et al.  Man versus model of man revisited: The forecasting of graduate school success. , 1971 .

[4]  Michael E. Doherty,et al.  Judgment theory applied to the selection of life insurance salesmen , 1976 .

[5]  E. H. Bowman.  Consistency and Optimality in Managerial Decision Making , 1963 .

[6]  Ronald J. Ebert,et al.  Bootstrapping the security analyst. , 1978 .

[7]  Robert Libby,et al.  Man versus model of man: some conflicting evidence , 1976 .

[8]  Lewis R. Goldberg,et al.  Man versus model of man: A rationale, plus some evidence, for a method of improving on clinical inferences. , 1970 .

[9]  R. Dawes,et al.  Linear models in decision making. , 1974 .

[10]  Berndt Brehmer,et al.  Response consistency in probabilistic inference tasks , 1978 .

[11]  William F. Wright.  Properties of judgment models in a financial setting , 1979 .

[12]  Howard Kunreuther,et al.  Extensions of Bowman's Theory on Managerial Decision-Making , 1969 .

[13]  Hillel J. Einhorn,et al.  Expert measurement and mechanical combination , 1972 .

[14]  R. Ebert.  Environmental Structure and Programmed Decision Effectiveness , 1972 .

[15]  R. Dawes.  Judgment under uncertainty: The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making , 1979 .

[16]  H. J. Einhorn.  Cue definition and residual judgment. , 1974, Organizational behavior and human performance.

[17]  K. R. Hammond.  Probabilistic functioning and the clinical method. , 1955, Psychological review.

[18]  B. Brehmer.  Note on clinical judgment and the formal characteristics of clinical tasks. , 1976 .

[19]  R. Dawes.  A case study of graduate admissions: Application of three principles of human decision making. , 1971 .

[20]  H. J. Einhorn,et al.  Linear regression and process-tracing models of judgment. , 1979 .

[21]  Howard Wainer,et al.  Estimating Coefficients in Linear Models: It Don't Make No Nevermind , 1976 .

[22]  D. B. Yntema,et al.  Man-Computer Cooperation in Decisions Requiring Common Sense , 1961 .

[23]  Joseph R. Troxell,et al.  Modeling Students' Ratings of Teaching Effectiveness , 1977 .

[24]  Jarrod W. Wilcox,et al.  A Method for Measuring Decision Assumptions , 1972 .

[25]  L. Tucker.  A SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE FORMULATION IN THE DEVELOPMENTS BY HURSCH, HAMMOND, AND HURSCH, AND BY HAMMOND, HURSCH, AND TODD. , 1964, Psychological review.

[26]  L. Grebstein.  Relative accuracy of actuarial prediction, experienced clinicians, and graduate students in a clinical judgment task. , 1963, Journal of consulting psychology.