Meta-informational cue inconsistency and judgment of information accuracy: Spotlight on intelligence analysis

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
David R. Mandel, Daniel Irwin, Mandeep K. Dhami, David V. Budescu
{"title":"Meta-informational cue inconsistency and judgment of information accuracy: Spotlight on intelligence analysis","authors":"David R. Mandel,&nbsp;Daniel Irwin,&nbsp;Mandeep K. Dhami,&nbsp;David V. Budescu","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2307","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Meta-information is information about information that can be used as cues to guide judgments and decisions. Three types of meta-information that are routinely used in intelligence analysis are source reliability, information credibility, and classification level. The first two cues are intended to speak to information quality (in particular, the probability that the information is accurate), and classification level is intended to describe the information's security sensitivity. Two experiments involving professional intelligence analysts (<i>N</i> = 25 and 27, respectively) manipulated meta-information in a 6 (source reliability) × 6 (information credibility) × 2 (classification) repeated-measures design. Ten additional items were retested to measure intra-individual reliability. Analysts judged the probability of information accuracy based on its meta-informational profile. In both experiments, the judged probability of information accuracy was sensitive to ordinal position on the scales and the directionality of linguistic terms used to anchor the levels of the two scales. Directionality led analysts to group the first three levels of each scale in a positive group and the fourth and fifth levels in a negative group, with the neutral term “cannot be judged” falling between these groups. Critically, as reliability and credibility cue inconsistency increased, there was a corresponding decrease in intra-analyst reliability, interanalyst agreement, and effective cue utilization. Neither experiment found a significant effect of classification on probability judgments.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.2307","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.2307","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Meta-information is information about information that can be used as cues to guide judgments and decisions. Three types of meta-information that are routinely used in intelligence analysis are source reliability, information credibility, and classification level. The first two cues are intended to speak to information quality (in particular, the probability that the information is accurate), and classification level is intended to describe the information's security sensitivity. Two experiments involving professional intelligence analysts (N = 25 and 27, respectively) manipulated meta-information in a 6 (source reliability) × 6 (information credibility) × 2 (classification) repeated-measures design. Ten additional items were retested to measure intra-individual reliability. Analysts judged the probability of information accuracy based on its meta-informational profile. In both experiments, the judged probability of information accuracy was sensitive to ordinal position on the scales and the directionality of linguistic terms used to anchor the levels of the two scales. Directionality led analysts to group the first three levels of each scale in a positive group and the fourth and fifth levels in a negative group, with the neutral term “cannot be judged” falling between these groups. Critically, as reliability and credibility cue inconsistency increased, there was a corresponding decrease in intra-analyst reliability, interanalyst agreement, and effective cue utilization. Neither experiment found a significant effect of classification on probability judgments.

Abstract Image

元信息线索不一致性与信息准确性判断——情报分析研究热点
元信息是关于信息的信息,可以用作指导判断和决策的线索。情报分析中常用的三类元信息是来源可靠性、信息可信度和分类水平。前两个线索旨在说明信息质量(特别是信息准确的概率),分类级别旨在描述信息的安全敏感性。两个涉及专业情报分析员的实验(N = 分别为25和27)在6(源可靠性)中操纵的元信息 × 6(信息可信度) × 2(分类)重复措施设计。另外10个项目被重新测试,以测量个体内部的可靠性。分析师根据信息的元信息特征来判断信息准确性的概率。在这两个实验中,信息准确性的判断概率对量表上的顺序位置和用于锚定两个量表水平的语言术语的方向性敏感。方向性使分析人员将每个量表的前三个级别分为阳性组,将第四和第五个级别划分为阴性组,中性术语“无法判断”介于这些组之间。至关重要的是,随着可靠性和可信度线索不一致性的增加,分析人员内部的可靠性、分析人员之间的一致性和有效线索利用率也相应降低。两个实验都没有发现分类对概率判断的显著影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral Decision Making is a multidisciplinary journal with a broad base of content and style. It publishes original empirical reports, critical review papers, theoretical analyses and methodological contributions. The Journal also features book, software and decision aiding technique reviews, abstracts of important articles published elsewhere and teaching suggestions. The objective of the Journal is to present and stimulate behavioral research on decision making and to provide a forum for the evaluation of complementary, contrasting and conflicting perspectives. These perspectives include psychology, management science, sociology, political science and economics. Studies of behavioral decision making in naturalistic and applied settings are encouraged.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信