Fluent, fast, and frugal? A formal model evaluation of the interplay between memory, fluency, and comparative judgments.

A new process model of the interplay between memory and judgment processes was recently suggested, assuming that retrieval fluency-that is, the speed with which objects are recognized-will determine inferences concerning such objects in a single-cue fashion. This aspect of the fluency heuristic, an extension of the recognition heuristic, has remained largely untested due to methodological difficulties. To overcome the latter, we propose a measurement model from the class of multinomial processing tree models that can estimate true single-cue reliance on recognition and retrieval fluency. We applied this model to aggregate and individual data from a probabilistic inference experiment and considered both goodness of fit and model complexity to evaluate different hypotheses. The results were relatively clear-cut, revealing that the fluency heuristic is an unlikely candidate for describing comparative judgments concerning recognized objects. These findings are discussed in light of a broader theoretical view on the interplay of memory and judgment processes.

[1]  M. Sidman A note on functional relations obtained from group data. , 1952, Psychological bulletin.

[2]  E. Wagenmakers A practical solution to the pervasive problems ofp values , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[3]  B. Hilbig One-reason decision making in risky choice? A closer look at the priority heuristic , 2008 .

[4]  Arndt Bröder,et al.  The use of recognition information and additional cues in inferences from memory. , 2006, Acta psychologica.

[5]  N. Sanders,et al.  Journal of behavioral decision making: "The need for contextual and technical knowledge in judgmental forecasting", 5 (1992) 39-52 , 1992 .

[6]  K. Fiedler How to study cognitive decision algorithms: The case of the priority heuristic , 2010, Judgment and Decision Making.

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

[8]  Daniel M. Oppenheimer,et al.  Not so fast! (and not so frugal!): rethinking the recognition heuristic , 2003, Cognition.

[9]  Julian N. Marewski On the theoretical precision and strategy selection problem of a single-strategy approach: A comment on Glockner, Betsch, and Schindler (2010). , 2010 .

[10]  Daniel M. Oppenheimer The secret life of fluency , 2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[11]  Wasserman,et al.  Bayesian Model Selection and Model Averaging. , 2000, Journal of mathematical psychology.

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

[13]  M. Lee,et al.  Evidence accumulation in decision making: Unifying the “take the best” and the “rational” models , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[14]  W. Estes,et al.  Risks of drawing inferences about cognitive processes from model fits to individual versus average performance , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[15]  B. W. Whittlesea Illusions of familiarity. , 1993 .

[16]  Rüdiger F. Pohl,et al.  Empirical tests of the recognition heuristic , 2006 .

[17]  Stefan M. Herzog,et al.  Fluency heuristic: a model of how the mind exploits a by-product of information retrieval. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[18]  Julian N. Marewski,et al.  The recognition heuristic in memory‐based inference: is recognition a non‐compensatory cue? , 2008 .

[19]  B. Hilbig Individual differences in fast-and-frugal decision making : neuroticism and the recognition heuristic , 2008 .

[20]  Brent Snook,et al.  Recognizing National Hockey League greatness with an ignorance-based heuristic. , 2006, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[21]  Joseph G. Johnson,et al.  A dynamic, stochastic, computational model of preference reversal phenomena. , 2005, Psychological review.

[22]  Daniel M. Oppenheimer,et al.  Effects of Fluency on Psychological Distance and Mental Construal (or Why New York Is a Large City, but New York Is a Civilized Jungle) , 2008, Psychological science.

[23]  Benjamin E Hilbig,et al.  Recognizing users of the recognition heuristic. , 2008, Experimental psychology.

[24]  J. Rieskamp The probabilistic nature of preferential choice. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[25]  Ben R. Newell,et al.  On the binary quality of recognition and the inconsequentiality of further knowledge: two critical tests of the recognition heuristic , 2006 .

[26]  Nigel Harvey,et al.  Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making , 2004 .

[27]  N. Schwarz,et al.  Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Perceiver's Processing Experience? , 2004, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[28]  Daniel M. Oppenheimer,et al.  Uniting the Tribes of Fluency to Form a Metacognitive Nation , 2009, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[29]  Edgar Erdfelder,et al.  One-reason decision making unveiled: a measurement model of the recognition heuristic. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[30]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Surrogates for Theory , 2009 .

[31]  Andreas Glöckner,et al.  Accounting for critical evidence while being precise and avoiding the strategy selection problem in a parallel constraint satisfaction approach – A reply to Marewski , 2010 .

[32]  B. Hilbig,et al.  Multinomial processing tree models: A review of the literature. , 2009 .

[33]  N. Schwarz,et al.  Effects of Perceptual Fluency on Judgments of Truth , 1999, Consciousness and Cognition.

[34]  Adam N. Sanborn,et al.  Model evaluation using grouped or individual data , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[35]  Timothy J. Pleskac,et al.  Theoretical tools for understanding and aiding dynamic decision making , 2009 .

[36]  B. Newell,et al.  The Right Tool for the Job? Comparing an Evidence Accumulation and a Naive Strategy Selection Model of Decision Making , 2011 .

[37]  Benjamin E. Hilbig,et al.  Ignorance- versus evidence-based decision making: a decision time analysis of the recognition heuristic. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[38]  D. Goldstein,et al.  Word count: 3998 Corresponding author: , 2022 .

[39]  Morten Moshagen,et al.  multiTree: A computer program for the analysis of multinomial processing tree models , 2010, Behavior research methods.

[40]  L. Jacoby,et al.  On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[41]  Benjamin E. Hilbig,et al.  Think or blink — is the recognition heuristic an “intuitive” strategy? , 2010, Judgment and Decision Making.

[42]  A. Raftery Bayesian Model Selection in Social Research , 1995 .

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

[44]  H Pashler,et al.  How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. , 2000, Psychological review.

[45]  David M. Riefer,et al.  Theoretical and empirical review of multinomial process tree modeling , 1999, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[46]  B. W. Whittlesea,et al.  Two fluency heuristics (and how to tell them apart) , 2003 .

[47]  Richard A. Chechile,et al.  Pooling data versus averaging model fits for some prototypical multinomial processing tree models , 2009 .

[48]  Christian Unkelbach,et al.  Reversing the truth effect: learning the interpretation of processing fluency in judgments of truth. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[49]  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 .

[50]  N. Schwarz,et al.  Effects of Perceptual Fluency on Affective Judgments , 1998 .

[51]  A. Glöckner,et al.  Coherence Shifts in Probabilistic Inference Tasks , 2009 .

[52]  Tobias Richter,et al.  Recognition is used as one cue among others in judgment and decision making. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[53]  R. Hertwig,et al.  How forgetting aids heuristic inference. , 2005, Psychological review.

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

[55]  L. Jacoby A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory , 1991 .

[56]  A. Glöckner,et al.  Beyond dual-process models: A categorisation of processes underlying intuitive judgement and decision making , 2010 .

[57]  William H. Batchelder,et al.  Multinomial models for measuring storage and retrieval processes in paired associate learning. , 1998 .

[58]  Andreas Glöckner,et al.  Processing of recognition information and additional cues: A model-based analysis of choice, confidence, and response time , 2011, Judgment and Decision Making.

[59]  M. Raijmakers,et al.  Parameter identification in multinomial processing tree models , 2010, Behavior research methods.

[60]  Benjamin E. Hilbig,et al.  Reconsidering “evidence” for fast-and-frugal heuristics , 2010, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[61]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Aspects of Endowment: A Query Theory of Value Construction , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[62]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Mindful judgment and decision making. , 2009, Annual review of psychology.

[63]  Rick P. Thomas,et al.  Psychological plausibility of the theory of probabilistic mental models and the fast and frugal heuristics. , 2008, Psychological review.

[64]  Jeremy K. Miller,et al.  Change in perceptual form attenuates the use of the fluency heuristic in recognition , 2003, Memory & cognition.

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

[66]  Benjamin E. Hilbig,et al.  Precise models deserve precise measures: A methodological dissection , 2010, Judgment and Decision Making.

[67]  Marc Jekel,et al.  Implementation of the multiple-measure maximum likelihood strategy classification in R , 2010 .

[68]  I. J. Myung,et al.  The Importance of Complexity in Model Selection. , 2000, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[69]  Andreas Glöckner,et al.  An eye‐tracking study on information processing in risky decisions: Evidence for compensatory strategies based on automatic processes , 2011 .

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

[71]  S. Lewandowsky,et al.  Computational Models as Aids to Better Reasoning in Psychology , 2010 .

[72]  Lael J. Schooler,et al.  The Recognition Heuristic: A Review of Theory and Tests , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[73]  V. Reyna CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE How People Make Decisions That Involve Risk A Dual-Processes Approach , 2022 .

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

[75]  Arndt Bröder,et al.  Bayesian strategy assessment in multi‐attribute decision making , 2003 .

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

[77]  Daniel M. Oppenheimer,et al.  Heuristics made easy: an effort-reduction framework. , 2008, Psychological bulletin.

[78]  Arndt Bröder,et al.  Criterion knowledge: A moderator of using the recognition heuristic? , 2009 .

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

[80]  Estes Wk The problem of inference from curves based on group data. , 1956 .

[81]  Lael J. Schooler,et al.  From recognition to decisions: Extending and testing recognition-based models for multialternative inference , 2010, Psychonomic bulletin & review.