Decontaminating human judgments by removing sequential dependencies

For over half a century, psychologists have been struck by how poor people are at expressing their internal sensations, impressions, and evaluations via rating scales. When individuals make judgments, they are incapable of using an absolute rating scale, and instead rely on reference points from recent experience. This relativity of judgment limits the usefulness of responses provided by individuals to surveys, questionnaires, and evaluation forms. Fortunately, the cognitive processes that transform internal states to responses are not simply noisy, but rather are influenced by recent experience in a lawful manner. We explore techniques to remove sequential dependencies, and thereby decontaminate a series of ratings to obtain more meaningful human judgments. In our formulation, decontamination is fundamentally a problem of inferring latent states (internal sensations) which, because of the relativity of judgment, have temporal dependencies. We propose a decontamination solution using a conditional random field with constraints motivated by psychological theories of relative judgment. Our exploration of decontamination models is supported by two experiments we conducted to obtain ground-truth rating data on a simple length estimation task. Our decontamination techniques yield an over 20% reduction in the error of human judgments.

[1]  A. Parducci The relativism of absolute judgements. , 1968, Scientific American.

[2]  Y. Lacouture,et al.  Bow, range, and sequential effects in absolute identification: A response-time analysis , 1997, Psychological research.

[3]  G. H. Mumma,et al.  Procedural debiasing of primacy/anchoring effects in clinical-like judgments. , 1995, Journal of clinical psychology.

[4]  A. Furnham The Robustness of the Recency Effect: Studies Using Legal Evidence , 1986 .

[5]  Andrew McCallum,et al.  An Introduction to Conditional Random Fields for Relational Learning , 2007 .

[6]  G. A. Miller THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[7]  Donald Laming,et al.  The relativity of ‘absolute’ judgements , 1984 .

[8]  John R. Anderson,et al.  The dynamics of scaling: a memory-based anchor model of category rating and absolute identification. , 2005, Psychological review.

[9]  D. Cross,et al.  Sequential Effects in Magnitude Scaling: Models and Theory , 1990 .

[10]  Andrew McCallum,et al.  Conditional Random Fields: Probabilistic Models for Segmenting and Labeling Sequence Data , 2001, ICML.

[11]  Gordon D. A. Brown,et al.  Absolute identification by relative judgment. , 2005, Psychological review.

[12]  A. Parducci Category judgment: a range-frequency model. , 1965, Psychological review.

[13]  Yehuda Koren,et al.  The BellKor Solution to the Netflix Grand Prize , 2009 .

[14]  Douglas H. Wedell,et al.  Reducing the dependence of clinical judgment on the immediate context: effects of number of categories and type of anchors. , 1990 .

[15]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[16]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.