Heuristic and linear models of judgment: matching rules and environments.

Much research has highlighted incoherent implications of judgmental heuristics, yet other findings have demonstrated high correspondence between predictions and outcomes. At the same time, judgment has been well modeled in the form of as if linear models. Accepting the probabilistic nature of the environment, the authors use statistical tools to model how the performance of heuristic rules varies as a function of environmental characteristics. They further characterize the human use of linear models by exploring effects of different levels of cognitive ability. They illustrate with both theoretical analyses and simulations. Results are linked to the empirical literature by a meta-analysis of lens model studies. Using the same tasks, the authors estimate the performance of both heuristics and humans where the latter are assumed to use linear models. Their results emphasize that judgmental accuracy depends on matching characteristics of rules and environments and highlight the trade-off between using linear models and heuristics. Whereas the former can be cognitively demanding, the latter are simple to implement. However, heuristics require knowledge to indicate when they should be used.

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

[2]  K. R. Hammond Probabilistic functioning and the clinical method. , 1955, Psychological review.

[3]  P. Meehl,et al.  Clinical versus Statistical Prediction. , 1955 .

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

[5]  H. Simon,et al.  Rational choice and the structure of the environment. , 1956, Psychological review.

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

[7]  K. R. Hammond,et al.  ANALYZING THE COMPONENTS OF CLINICAL INFERENCE. , 1964, Psychological review.

[8]  K. R. Hammond,et al.  SOME METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN MULTIPLE-CUE PROBABILITY STUDIES. , 1964, Psychological review.

[9]  L. Tucker A SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE FORMULATION IN THE DEVELOPMENTS BY HURSCH, HAMMOND, AND HURSCH, AND BY HAMMOND, HURSCH, AND TODD. , 1964, Psychological review.

[10]  K. R. Hammond,et al.  COGNITIVE DEPENDENCE ON LINEAR AND NONLINEAR CUES. , 1965, Psychological review.

[11]  K. R. Hammond,et al.  A research paradigm for the study of interpersonal learning. , 1966, Psychological bulletin.

[12]  Rita C. Summers,et al.  Judgments Based on Different Functional Relationships between Interacting Cues and a Criterion , 1969 .

[13]  Lewis R. Goldberg,et al.  Man versus model of man: A rationale, plus some evidence, for a method of improving on clinical inferences. , 1970 .

[14]  Hillel J. Einhorn,et al.  Expert measurement and mechanical combination , 1972 .

[15]  Donald H. Deane,et al.  Acquisition and application of knowledge in complex inference tasks. , 1972 .

[16]  Derick O. Steinmann,et al.  A lens model analysis of a bookbag and poker chip experiment: A methodological note , 1972 .

[17]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability , 1973 .

[18]  Kenneth R. Hammond,et al.  Negative effects of outcome-feedback in multiple-cue probability learning. , 1973 .

[19]  B. Armelius,et al.  The use of redundancy in multiple-cue judgments: Data from a suppressor-variable task. , 1974 .

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

[21]  Derick O. Steinmann Transfer of lens model training , 1974 .

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

[23]  P. Muchinsky,et al.  Human inference behavior in abstract and meaningful environments , 1975 .

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

[25]  K. Rudestam,et al.  Effects of Amounts and Units of Information on the Judgmental Process , 1976 .

[26]  Michael K. Lindell Cognitive and Outcome Feedback in Multiple-Cue Probability Learning Tasks. , 1976 .

[27]  Michael E. Doherty,et al.  Feedback effects in a metric multiple-cue probability learning task. , 1976 .

[28]  Howard Wainer,et al.  Estimating Coefficients in Linear Models: It Don't Make No Nevermind , 1976 .

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

[30]  H. J. Einhorn,et al.  Linear regression and process-tracing models of judgment. , 1979 .

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

[32]  W. Thorngate Efficient decision heuristics. , 1980 .

[33]  Berndt Brehmer,et al.  Content and consistency in probabilistic inference tasks , 1980 .

[34]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory , 1980 .

[35]  R. Hogarth Judgement and choice: The psychology of decision , 1982 .

[36]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Multidimensional functional learning (MFL) and some new conceptions of feedback , 1981 .

[37]  N. Anderson Foundations of information integration theory , 1981 .

[38]  Colin F. Camerer,et al.  General conditions for the success of bootstrapping models , 1981 .

[39]  R. Hogarth Beyond discrete biases: Functional and dysfunctional aspects of judgmental heuristics. , 1981 .

[40]  R. Ashton,et al.  Feedback And Prediction Achievement In Financial Analysis , 1981 .

[41]  R. Ashton A Descriptive Study Of Information Evaluation , 1981 .

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

[43]  H. Rothstein The effects of time pressure on judgment in multiple cue probability learning , 1986 .

[44]  Berndt Brehmer,et al.  Use of experts in complex decision making: A paradigm for the study of staff work , 1986 .

[45]  H. J. Einhorn,et al.  Accepting error to make less error. , 1986, Journal of personality assessment.

[46]  Kenneth M. York,et al.  The influence of cue unreliability on judgment in a multiple cue probability learning task , 1987 .

[47]  J. Klayman,et al.  Confirmation, Disconfirmation, and Informa-tion in Hypothesis Testing , 1987 .

[48]  Robin M. Hogarth,et al.  Judgement and choice: The psychology of decision, 2nd ed. , 1987 .

[49]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Analyzing Decision Making: Metric Conjoint Analysis , 1988 .

[50]  A. Tversky,et al.  Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment , 1983 .

[51]  B. Brehmer,et al.  Human judgment : the SJT view , 1988 .

[52]  R. Dawes,et al.  Heuristics and Biases: Clinical versus Actuarial Judgment , 2002 .

[53]  B Kleinmuntz,et al.  Why we still use our heads instead of formulas: toward an integrative approach. , 1990, Psychological bulletin.

[54]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Learning from feedback: exactingness and incentives. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[55]  J. Frank Yates,et al.  How Quantity Judgment Changes as the Number of Cues Increases: An Analytical Framework and Review , 1992 .

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

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

[58]  C. Mckenzie The Accuracy of Intuitive Judgment Strategies: Covariation Assessment and Bayesian Inference , 1994, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[60]  G. Gigerenzer On Narrow Norms and Vague Heuristics: A Reply to Kahneman and Tversky (1996) , 1996 .

[61]  Ray W. Cooksey,et al.  Judgment analysis : theory, methods, and applications , 1996 .

[62]  D Kahneman,et al.  On the reality of cognitive illusions. , 1996, Psychological review.

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

[64]  T. R. Stewart,et al.  The Importance of the Task in Analyzing Expert Judgment , 1997 .

[65]  T. R. Stewart,et al.  Aging and multiple cue probability learning: the case of inverse relationships. , 1997, Acta psychologica.

[66]  R. Tweney,et al.  The Role of Data and Feedback Error in Inference and Prediction , 1998 .

[67]  E. Mullet,et al.  How well do elderly people cope with uncertainty in a learning task? , 1999, Acta psychologica.

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

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

[70]  M. F. Luce,et al.  Emotional Trade-Off Difficulty and Choice: , 1999 .

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

[72]  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.

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

[74]  Kenneth R. Hammond,et al.  Human Judgment and Social Policy: Irreducible Uncertainty, Inevitable Error, Unavoidable Injustice , 2000 .

[75]  T. R. Stewart,et al.  The essential brunswik: Beginnings, explications, applications. , 2001 .

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

[77]  P. Slovic,et al.  The affect heuristic , 2007, European Journal of Operational Research.

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

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

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

[81]  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.

[82]  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.

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

[84]  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.

[85]  Mandeep K. Dhami,et al.  The role of representative design in an ecological approach to cognition. , 2004, Psychological bulletin.

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

[87]  E. Mullet,et al.  Functional learning among children, adolescents, and young adults. , 2004, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[88]  Robin M. Hogarth,et al.  Ignoring information in binary choice with continuous variables: When is less “more”? , 2005 .

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

[90]  Kai H. Lim,et al.  Improving judgmental forecasts with judgmental bootstrapping and task feedback support , 2005 .

[91]  Reid Hastie,et al.  The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions. , 2005, Psychological review.

[92]  R. Youmans,et al.  To thy own self be true: finding the utility of cognitive information feedback , 2005 .

[93]  Robin M. Hogarth,et al.  Simple Models for Multiattribute Choice with Many Alternatives: When It Does and Does Not Pay to Face Trade-offs with Binary Attributes , 2005, Manag. Sci..

[94]  Robin M. Hogarth,et al.  "Take-the-best" and other simple strategies: Why and when they work "well" with binary cues , 2006 .

[95]  Robin M. Hogarth,et al.  Regions of Rationality: Maps for Bounded Agents , 2005, Decis. Anal..

[96]  Natalia Karelaia,et al.  Thirst for confirmation in multi-attribute choice: Does search for consistency impair decision performance? , 2006 .

[97]  Robin M. Hogarth,et al.  “Take-the-Best” and Other Simple Strategies: Why and When they Work “Well” with Binary Cues , 2006 .

[98]  Konstantinos V. Katsikopoulos,et al.  Naïve heuristics for paired comparisons: Some results on their relative accuracy , 2006 .

[99]  Juan A. Carrasco,et al.  Cumulative dominance and heuristic performance in binary multi-attribute choice , 2006 .

[100]  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.

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

[102]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Determinants of Linear Judgment: A Meta-Analysis of Lens Model Studies , 2007 .

[103]  P. Todd,et al.  Escaping the tyranny of choice: when fewer attributes make choice easier , 2007 .

[104]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Determinants of Linear Judgment: A Meta-Analysis of Lens Model Studies , 2007, Psychological bulletin.