Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:19:22.391Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ethics of Using or Not Using Statistical Prediction Rules in Psychological Practice and Related Consulting Activities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Robyn M. Dawes
Robyn M. Dawes*
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University
*
Send requests for reprints to the author, Department of Social and Decision Sciences, 208 Porter Hall, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213; rd1b+@andrew.cmu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Professionals often believe that they must “exercise judgment” in making decisions critical to other people's lives. The relative superiority (established in roughly 150 studies) of statistical prediction rules (SPR's) to intuitive judgment for combining incomparable sources of information to predict important human outcomes leads us to question this personal input belief. Some professionals hence use SPR's to “educate” intuitive judgment, rather than replace it. In psychology in particular, such amalgamation is not justified. If a well-validated SPR that is superior to professional judgment exists in a relevant decision making context, professionals should use it, totally absenting themselves from the prediction.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 69 , Issue S3 , September 2002 , pp. S178 - S184
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

106th Congress. (July 12, 1999). House Concurrent Resolution 107, sponsored by Matt Salmon.Google Scholar
Bartlett, F. C. (1932), Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bishop, M. A. (2000), “In Praise of Epistemic Irresponsibility: How Lazy and Ignorant Can You Be?”, In Praise of Epistemic Irresponsibility: How Lazy and Ignorant Can You Be? 122:179–208.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. et al. (1989), “Debunking Myths about Self-Quitting”, Debunking Myths about Self-Quitting 44:1355–1365.Google ScholarPubMed
Dawes, R. M. (1994), House of Cards: Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Dawes, R. M. (2001), Everyday Irrationality: How Pseudo-Scientists, Lunatics, and the Rest of Us Systematically Fail to Be Rational. San Francisco, Calif.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Fowler, R. D. (June 9, 1999), Letter to Tom DeLay.Google Scholar
Loftus, E. F. (1994), “The Repressed Memory Controversy”, The Repressed Memory Controversy 49:443–445.Google ScholarPubMed
Meehl, P. E. (1967), “Theory Testing in Psychology and Physics: A Methodological Paradox”, Theory Testing in Psychology and Physics: A Methodological Paradox 34:103–115.Google Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1978), “Theoretical Risks and Tabular Risks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the Slow Progress of Soft Psychology”, Theoretical Risks and Tabular Risks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the Slow Progress of Soft Psychology 4:806–834.Google Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1986), “Causes and Effects of My Disturbing Little Book”, Causes and Effects of My Disturbing Little Book 50:370–375.Google ScholarPubMed
Moses, Lincoln E. 1994, Proceedings: Workshop on Needle Exchange and Bleach Distribution Programs. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Pearson, R. W., Ross, M., and Dawes, R. M. (1991), “Personal Recall and the Limits of Retrospective Questions in Surveys”, in Tanur, J. M. (ed.), Questions about Questions: Inquiries into the Cognitive Bases of Surveys. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 65–94.Google Scholar
Poole, D. A., Lindsay, D. S., Memon, A., and Bull, R. (1995), “Psychotherapy and the Recovery of Memories of Childhood Sexual Abuse: U.S. and British Practitioners’ Opinions, Practices, and Experiences”, Psychotherapy and the Recovery of Memories of Childhood Sexual Abuse: U.S. and British Practitioners’ Opinions, Practices, and Experiences 63:426–437.Google ScholarPubMed
Rind, B., Tromovitch, P., and Bauserman, R. (1998), “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples”, A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples 124:22–53.Google ScholarPubMed
Sinsheimer, R. L. (1971), “The Brain of Pooh: An Essay on the Limits of Mind”, The Brain of Pooh: An Essay on the Limits of Mind 59:20–28.Google Scholar
Swets, J. A., Dawes, R. M., and Monahan, J. (2000), “Psychological Science Can Improve Diagnostic Decisions”, Psychological Science Can Improve Diagnostic Decisions 1:1–26.Google ScholarPubMed
Turner, C. F., Miller, H. G., and Moses, L. E. (1989), AIDS: Sexual Behavior and Intravenous Drug Use. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar