“Take-the-Best” and Other Simple Strategies: Why and When they Work “Well” with Binary Cues

The effectiveness of decision rules depends on characteristics of both rules and environments. A theoretical analysis of environments specifies the relative predictive accuracies of the “take-the-best” heuristic (TTB) and other simple strategies for choices between two outcomes based on binary cues. We identify three factors: how cues are weighted; characteristics of choice sets; and error. In the absence of error and for cases involving from three to five binary cues, TTB is effective across many environments. However, hybrids of equal weights (EW) and TTB models are more effective as environments become more compensatory. As error in the environment increases, the predictive ability of all models is systematically degraded. Indeed, using the datasets of Gigerenzer et al. (1999, Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart, New York: Oxford University Press), TTB and similar models do not predict much better than a naïve model that exploits dominance. Finally, we emphasize that the results reported here are conditional on binary cues.

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

[2]  Robin M. Hogarth,et al.  Take-the-Best and Other Simple Strategies: Why and When They Work Well in Binary Choice , 2004 .

[3]  Henry Montgomery,et al.  Decision Rules and the Search for a Dominance Structure: Towards a Process Model of Decision Making* , 1983 .

[4]  P M Todd,et al.  Précis of Simple heuristics that make us smart , 2000, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

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

[6]  Franz Schmalhofer,et al.  STOCHASTIC CHOICE HEURISTICS , 1984 .

[7]  R. Dawes Judgment under uncertainty: The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making , 1979 .

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

[9]  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.

[10]  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.

[11]  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.

[12]  R. Dawes,et al.  Linear models in decision making. , 1974 .

[13]  U. Hoffrage,et al.  Fast, frugal, and fit: Simple heuristics for paired comparison , 2002 .

[14]  Magnus Persson,et al.  PROBabilities from EXemplars (PROBEX): a "lazy" algorithm for probabilistic inference from generic knowledge , 2002, Cogn. Sci..

[15]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  The adaptive decision maker , 1993 .

[16]  James Shanteau,et al.  Fast and frugal heuristics: What about unfriendly environments? , 2000 .

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

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

[19]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Unit weighting schemes for decision making , 1975 .

[20]  E. Brunswik,et al.  The Conceptual Framework of Psychology , 1954 .

[21]  Franz Schmalhofer,et al.  Process Traces of Binary Choices: Evidence for Selective and Adaptive Decision Heuristics , 1986 .

[22]  Ulrich Hoffrage,et al.  Why does one-reason decision making work? A case study in ecological rationality , 1999 .

[23]  Nick Chater,et al.  Fast, frugal, and rational: How rational norms explain behavior , 2003 .

[24]  K. Fernow New York , 1896, American Potato Journal.

[25]  B. Newell,et al.  Take the best or look at the rest? Factors influencing "one-reason" decision making. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.