Research findings consistently have shown that judgments, evaluations and assessments delivered by experts can be described by fewer significant sources of information (cues) than expected (Shanteau, 1992; Rumiati and Bonini, 1996). For instance, Hoffman, Slovic and Rorer (1968) report that medical radiologists use two to six cues in their professional judgments. In a similar study, Einhorn (1974) finds that medical pathologists use one to four significant cues. Ebbesen and Konecni (1975) find that experienced court judges use only one to three cues when setting bail. Stockbrokers have been found to rely on six to seven cues (Slovic, 1969).