Coherence Shifts in Probabilistic Inference Tasks

The fast-and-frugal heuristics approach to probabilistic inference assumes that individuals often employ simple heuristics to integrate cue information that commonly function in a non-reciprocal fashion. Specifically, the subjective validity of a certain cue remains stable during the application of a heuristic and is not changed by the presence or absence of another cue. The parallel-constraint-satisfaction model, in contrast, predicts that information is processed in a reciprocal fashion. Specifically, it assumes that subjective cue validities interactively af-fect each other and are modified to coherently support the favored choice. Corresponding to the model’s simulation, we predicted the direction of such coherence shifts.Cue validities were measured before, after (Exp. 1) and during judgment (Exp. 2 & 3). Coherence shifts were found in environments involving real-world cue knowledge (weather forecasts) and in a domain for which the application of fast-and-frugal heuristics has been demonstrated (city-size tasks). The results indicate that subjective cue validities are not fixed parameters, but that they are interactively changed to form coherent representations of the task.

[1]  A. Glöckner,et al.  Multiple-reason decision making based on automatic processing. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[2]  S. Fiske,et al.  The Handbook of Social Psychology , 1935 .

[3]  E. Brunswik Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. , 1955, Psychological review.

[4]  H. Simon,et al.  A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice , 1955 .

[5]  P. Hoffman The paramorphic representation of clinical judgment. , 1960, Psychological bulletin.

[6]  L. Festinger Conflict, Decision, and Dissonance , 1964 .

[7]  A. Tversky Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. , 1972 .

[8]  A. K. Basu A Theory of Decision-Making , 1973, The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare.

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

[10]  Peter C. Fishburn,et al.  LEXICOGRAPHIC ORDERS, UTILITIES AND DECISION RULES: A SURVEY , 1974 .

[11]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs , 1976 .

[12]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. , 1977 .

[13]  L. Beach,et al.  A Contingency Model for the Selection of Decision Strategies , 1978 .

[14]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[15]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. , 1981 .

[16]  D. Frey,et al.  Informationssuche und Informationsbewertung bei Entscheidungen , 1981 .

[17]  H. Simon,et al.  Models of Bounded Rationality: Empirically Grounded Economic Reason , 1997 .

[18]  John W. Payne,et al.  Contingent decision behavior. , 1982 .

[19]  B. Dosher,et al.  Strategies for multiattribute binary choice. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[20]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Adaptive Strategy Selection in Decision Making. , 1988 .

[21]  G. Bower,et al.  From conditioning to category learning: an adaptive network model. , 1988 .

[22]  H. Montgomery From cognition to action: The search for dominance in decision making. , 1989 .

[23]  Paul Thagard,et al.  Analogical Mapping by Constraint Satisfaction , 1989, Cogn. Sci..

[24]  G. Gigerenzer,et al.  Probabilistic mental models: a Brunswikian theory of confidence. , 1991, Psychological review.

[25]  D. Gilbert How mental systems believe. , 1991 .

[26]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Behavioral decision research: A constructive processing perspective. , 1992 .

[27]  N. Pennington,et al.  Explaining the evidence: Tests of the Story Model for juror decision making. , 1992 .

[28]  O. Svenson Differentiation and consolidation theory of human decision making: A frame of reference for the study of pre- and post-decision processes , 1992 .

[29]  Lola L. Lopes Three Misleading Assumptions in the Customary Rhetoric of the Bias Literature , 1992 .

[30]  J. Townsend,et al.  Decision field theory: a dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. , 1993, Psychological review.

[31]  P. Thagard,et al.  Explanatory coherence , 1993 .

[32]  B. Brehmer The psychology of linear judgement models , 1994 .

[33]  David B. Leake,et al.  Goal-driven learning , 1995 .

[34]  P. Slovic The Construction of Preference , 1995 .

[35]  Elke U. Weber,et al.  And let us not Forget Memory: The Role of Memory Processes and Techniques in the Study of Judgment and Choice , 1995 .

[36]  P. Thagard,et al.  FORMING IMPRESSIONS FROM STEREOTYPES, TRAITS, AND BEHAVIORS : A PARALLEL-CONSTRAINT-SATISFACTION THEORY , 1996 .

[37]  Michael E. Doherty,et al.  Social judgement theory , 1996 .

[38]  T. Shultz,et al.  Cognitive dissonance reduction as constraint satisfaction. , 1996, Psychological review.

[39]  G Gigerenzer,et al.  Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. , 1996, Psychological review.

[40]  Robin M. Hogarth,et al.  Judgment and decision research: Some historical context. , 1997 .

[41]  S. Read,et al.  Connectionism, Parallel Constraint Satisfaction Processes, and Gestalt Principles: (Re)Introducing Cognitive Dynamics to Social Psychology , 1997, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[42]  P. Thagard,et al.  Inference to the best plan: A coherence theory of decision. , 1997 .

[43]  Margaret G. Meloy,et al.  Predecisional Distortion of Product Information , 1998 .

[44]  Stephen J. Read,et al.  On the dynamic construction of meaning: An interactive activation and competition model of social perception. , 1998 .

[45]  R. Dawes Behavioral decision making and judgment. , 1998 .

[46]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Bidirectional reasoning in decision making by constraint satisfaction , 1999 .

[47]  D. Goldstein,et al.  How good are simple heuristics , 1999 .

[48]  D. Goldstein,et al.  Betting on one good reason : The Take the Best heuristic , 1999 .

[49]  Ulrich Hoffrage,et al.  When do people use simple heuristics, and how can we tell? , 1999 .

[50]  P. Todd,et al.  Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart , 1999 .

[51]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  The recognition heuristic: How ignorance makes us smart , 1999 .

[52]  C. Gettys,et al.  MINERVA-DM: A memory processes model for judgments of likelihood. , 1999 .

[53]  Ulrich Hoffrage,et al.  Quick estimation : Letting the environment do the work , 1999 .

[54]  William Gould,et al.  Maximum likelihood estimation with stata , 1999 .

[55]  A. Bröder Assessing the empirical validity of the "take-the-best" heuristic as a model of human probabilistic inference. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[56]  Iver Mysterud,et al.  Take the best , 2000 .

[57]  R. Selten,et al.  Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox , 2000 .

[58]  James L. McClelland,et al.  The time course of perceptual choice: the leaky, competing accumulator model. , 2001, Psychological review.

[59]  K. Fiedler,et al.  The effects of routine strength on adaptation and information search in recurrent decision making. , 2001, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[60]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Group Report: Why and When Do Simple Heuristics Works? , 2001 .

[61]  K. Holyoak,et al.  The emergence of coherence over the course of decision making. , 2001 .

[62]  J. E. Russo,et al.  Biased interpretation of evidence by mock jurors. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[63]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. , 2002 .

[64]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment , 2002 .

[65]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Models of ecological rationality: the recognition heuristic. , 2002, Psychological review.

[66]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Structural Dynamics of Cognition: From Consistency Theories to Constraint Satisfaction , 2002 .

[67]  T. Betsch,et al.  Explaining Routinized Decision Making , 2002 .

[68]  A. Bröder Decision making with the "adaptive toolbox": influence of environmental structure, intelligence, and working memory load. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[69]  P. Thagard Why wasn't O.J. convicted? Emotional coherence in legal inference , 2003, Cognition & emotion.

[70]  B. Newell,et al.  Empirical tests of a fast-and-frugal heuristic: Not everyone "takes-the-best" , 2003 .

[71]  P. Todd,et al.  Bounding rationality to the world , 2003 .

[72]  A. Brownstein,et al.  Biased predecision processing. , 2003, Psychological bulletin.

[73]  A. Bröder,et al.  Take the best versus simultaneous feature matching: probabilistic inferences from memory and effects of representation format. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[74]  Keith J. Holyoak,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article Construction of Preferences by Constraint Satisfaction , 2022 .

[75]  S. Read,et al.  The redux of cognitive consistency theories: evidence judgments by constraint satisfaction. , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[76]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Fast and frugal heuristics: The tools of bounded rationality , 2004 .

[77]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Loss aversion and inhibition in dynamical models of multialternative choice. , 2004, Psychological review.

[78]  S. Read,et al.  Bias at the Racetrack: Effects of Individual Expertise and Task Importance on Predecision Reevaluation of Alternatives , 2004, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[79]  Laurie Hendren,et al.  The abc Group , 2004 .

[80]  T. Betsch,et al.  The routines of decision making , 2005 .

[81]  Tilmann Betsch,et al.  Preference theory: An affect-based approach to recurrent decision making. , 2005 .

[82]  Jörg Rieskamp,et al.  Perspectives of probabilistic inferences: Reinforcement learning and an adaptive network compared. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[83]  Paul J. Feltovich,et al.  The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance , 2006 .

[84]  A. Bröder,et al.  Adaptive flexibility and maladaptive routines in selecting fast and frugal decision strategies. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[85]  Arndt Bröder,et al.  Stimulus format and working memory in fast and frugal strategy selection , 2006 .

[86]  J. Yates,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance: Decision-Making Expertise , 2006 .

[87]  J. Rieskamp,et al.  SSL: a theory of how people learn to select strategies. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[88]  Joseph Antonik,et al.  Decision Management , 2007, MILCOM 2007 - IEEE Military Communications Conference.

[89]  Paul Bloom,et al.  The Origins of Cognitive Dissonance , 2007, Psychological science.

[90]  W. Gaissmaier,et al.  Sequential processing of cues in memory-based multiattribute decisions , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[91]  R. Nosofsky,et al.  A response-time approach to comparing generalized rational and take-the-best models of decision making. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[92]  Andreas Glöckner Does Intuition Beat Fast and Frugal Heuristics? A Systematic Empirical Approach , 2007 .

[93]  Daniel C. Krawczyk,et al.  (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/bdm.575 The Transience of Constructed Preferences , 2008 .

[94]  A. Hayes,et al.  Using heteroskedasticity-consistent standard error estimators in OLS regression: An introduction and software implementation , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[95]  Arndt Bröder,et al.  Challenging some common beliefs: Empirical work within the adaptive toolbox metaphor , 2008, Judgment and Decision Making.

[96]  Andreas Glöckner,et al.  Can We Trust Intuitive Jurors? An Experimental Analysis , 2008 .

[97]  A. Glöckner,et al.  Do People Make Decisions Under Risk Based on Ignorance? An Empirical Test of the Priority Heuristic Against Cumulative Prospect Theory , 2008 .

[98]  Jerome R. Busemeyer,et al.  Computational Models of Decision Making , 2003 .

[99]  Arndt Bröder,et al.  Cognitive processes, models and metaphors in decision research , 2008, Judgment and Decision Making.

[100]  J. Rieskamp The importance of learning when making inferences , 2008, Judgment and Decision Making.

[101]  How Evolution Outwits Bounded Rationality , 2008 .

[102]  A. Glöckner,et al.  Multiple-reason decision making based on automatic processing. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[103]  Andreas Glöckner,et al.  Modeling Option and Strategy Choices with Connectionist Networks: Towards an Integrative Model of Automatic and Deliberate Decision Making , 2008, Judgment and Decision Making.

[104]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Homo Heuristicus: Why Biased Minds Make Better Inferences , 2009, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[105]  Sara D. Hodges,et al.  Parallel Constraint Satisfaction in Memory-Based Decisions , 2009 .

[106]  F. Gobet,et al.  The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance , 2006 .

[107]  A. Glöckner Investigating intuitive and deliberate processes statistically: The multiple-measure maximum likelihood strategy classification method , 2009, Judgment and Decision Making.

[108]  Tilmann Betsch,et al.  Does Intuition Beat Fast and Frugal Heuristics? A Systematic Empirical Analysis , 2011 .