The Kahneman, Slovic and Tversky edited volume helped establish the heuristics and biases field and was written with outside academic readers in mind.

Judge as of 2008. The claim is about 'Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases' (1982) and has two parts: (a) it helped establish the heuristics and biases field; (b) it was written with outside academic readers in mind (that is, readers outside the specialty). True: histories of the field or reviews describe the volume as foundational or influential in establishing the field, and its preface or reviews show it was aimed at a broad academic readership beyond specialists. Mostly true: (a) is well supported and (b) is broadly supported with minor qualification. Mixed: only one part is supported. Mostly false: the volume was influential but is described as a consolidation of an already established field, and it was aimed mainly at specialists. False: the volume is shown to be neither foundational nor aimed at outside readers.

Set before the research began.

1. E1 Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. | PSNet Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), PSNet

   “This assembled volume collectively helped to establish an understanding of the mechanisms by which humans commit cognitive errors.”

2. E2 Heuristics, History of Elsevier (encyclopedia entry by Ralph Hertwig and Thorsten Pachur, Max Planck Institute for Human Development) · 2015

   “From the 1990s, a new research program on cognitive heuristics emerged that challenged both the idea that heuristics are error-prone mental tools (Kahneman et al., 1982)”

3. E3 Preface - Judgment under Uncertainty Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Core) · 5 May 2013

   “The approach to the study of judgment that this book represents had origins in three lines of research that developed in the 1950s and 1960s”

On part (a), E1 (AHRQ PSNet) says the volume "collectively helped to establish an understanding" of how humans make cognitive errors. E2 cites the 1982 volume for the view that heuristics are error-prone. E3, the preface, notes that the approach grew out of research lines from the 1950s and 60s, which slightly qualifies how far the volume founded the field. None of the evidence says who the volume was written for, so part (b) is not supported, and under the criteria only one part is supported.