The occasional maverick of analytic tradecraft

Bibliography

• Chang, W., E. Berdini, D. R. Mandel, and P. E. Tetlock. “Restructuring Structured Analytic Techniques in Intelligence.” Intelligence and National Security 33, no. 3 (2018): 337–356. doi:10.1080/02684527.2017.1400230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, W., and P. E. Tetlock. “Rethinking the Training of Intelligence Analysts.” Intelligence and National Security 31, no. 6 (2016): 903–920. doi:10.1080/02684527.2016.1147164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coulthart, S. “From Laboratory to the WMD Commission: How Academic Research Influences Intelligence Agencies.” Intelligence and National Security 34, no. 6 (2019): 818–832. doi:10.1080/02684527.2019.1620547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crupi, V., J. D. Nelson, B. Meder, G. Cevolani, and K. Tentori. “Generalized Information Theory Meets Human Cognition: Introducing a Unified Framework to Model Uncertainty and Information Search.” Cognitive Science 42, no. 5 (2018): 1410–1456. doi:10.1111/cogs.12613.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dhami, M. K., I. K. Belton, and D. R. Mandel. “The ‘Analysis of Competing Hypotheses’ in Intelligence Analysis.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 33, no. 6 (2019): 1080–1090. doi:10.1002/acp.3550.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dhami, M. K., D. R. Mandel, B. A. Mellers, and P. E. Tetlock. “Improving Intelligence Analysis with Decision Science.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 10, no. 6 (2015): 753–757. doi:10.1177/1745691615598511.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feynman, R. P. “Cargo Cult Science.” Engineering and Science 37, no. 7 (1974): 10–13.
   Google Scholar
• Heuer, R. J., Jr. Psychology of Intelligence Analysis. Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency, Center for the Study of Intelligence, 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Heuer, R. J., Jr. 2010. “Email Correspondence Sent to the International Association for Intelligence Education.” August 15.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. “Subjective Probability: A Judgment of Representativeness.” Cognitive Psychology 3 (1972): 430–454. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karvetski, C. W., D. R. Mandel, and D. Irwin. “Improving Probability Judgment in Intelligence Analysis: From Structured Analysis to Statistical Aggregation.” Risk Analysis (in press).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kent, S. “Estimates and Influence.” In Sherman Kent and the Board of National Estimates: Collected Essays, edited by D. P. Steury, 51–59. Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency Centre for the Study of Intelligence, 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Kerbel, J. 2014. “The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Kodak Moment.” The National Interest, May 15. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-us-intelligence-communitys-kodak-moment-10463
   Google Scholar
• Mandel, D. R. “Applied Behavioural Science in Support of Intelligence: Experiences in Building a Canadian Capability.” Commissioned Report to the Committee on Field Evaluation of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences-Based Methods and Tools for Intelligence and Counter-intelligence, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Toronto, Canada: The author, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Mandel, D. R. “Can Decision Science Improve Intelligence Analysis?” In Researching National Security Intelligence: Multidisciplinary Approaches, edited by S. Coulthart, M. Landon-Murray, and D. Van Puyvelde, 117–140. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Mandel, D. R., and A. Barnes. “Accuracy of Forecasts in Strategic Intelligence.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, no. 30 (2014): 10984–10989. doi:10.1073/pnas.1406138111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandel, D. R., C. W. Karvetski, and M. K. Dhami. “Boosting Intelligence Analysts’ Judgment Accuracy: What Works? What Fails?” Judgment and Decision Making 13, no. 6 (2018): 607–621. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02640.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandel, D. R., and P. E. Tetlock. “Correcting Judgment Correctives in National Security Intelligence.” Frontiers in Psychology 9 (2018): 2640. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02640.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marrin, S. “Intelligence Analysis: Structured Methods or Intuition?” American Intelligence Journal 25, no. 1 (2007): 7–16.
   Google Scholar
• Marrin, S. “Training and Educating U.S. Intelligence Analysts.” International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence 22, no. 1 (2009): 131–146. doi:10.1080/08850600802486986.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, J. D. “Finding Useful Questions: On Bayesian Diagnosticity, Probability, Impact, and Information Gain.” Psychological Review 112, no. 4 (2005): 979–999. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.979.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nolte, W. “US Intelligence and Its Future: Aligning with a New and Complex Environment.” Intelligence and National Security 34, no. 4 (2019): 615–618. doi:10.1080/02684527.2019.1600286.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pool, R. Field Evaluation in the Intelligence and Counterintelligence Context: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Rieber, S., and N. Thomason. “Creation of a National Institute for Analytic Methods.” Studies in Intelligence 49, no. 4 (2005): 71–77.
   Google Scholar
• Scopelliti, I., C. K. Morewedge, E. McCormick, H. L. Min, S. Lebrecht, and K. S. Kassam. “Bias Blind Spot: Structure, Measurement, and Consequences.” Management Science 61, no. 10 (2015): 2468–2486. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2014.2096.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tetlock, P. E., B. A. Mellers, N. Rorbaugh, and E. Chen. “Forecasting Tournaments: Tools for Increasing Transparency and Improving the Quality of the Debate.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 23, no. 4 (2014): 290–295. doi:10.1177/0963721414534257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Timms, M., D. R. Mandel, and J. D. Nelson. “Applying Information Theory to Validate Commanders’ Critical Information Requirements.” In Handbook of Military and Defence Operation Research, edited by N. M. Scala and J. Howards, 331–344. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• United States Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Intelligence Community Directive 203, Analytic Tradecraft. Washington, DC: United States Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 2015.
   Google Scholar
• West, R. F., R. J. Meserve, and K. E. Stanovich. “Cognitive Sophistication Does Not Attenuate the Bias Blind Spot.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 103, no. 3 (2012): 506–519. doi:10.1037/a0028857.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitesmith, M. “The Efficacy of ACH in Mitigating Serial Position Effects and Confirmation Bias in an Intelligence Analysis Scenario.” Intelligence and National Security 34, no. 2 (2019): 225–242. doi:10.1080/02684527.2018.1534640.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar