Evaluating three criteria for establishing cue-search hierarchies in inferential judgment.

The authors identify and provide an integration of 3 criteria for establishing cue-search hierarchies in inferential judgment. Cues can be ranked by information value according to expected information gain (Bayesian criterion), cue-outcome correlation (correlational criterion), or ecological validity (accuracy criterion). All criteria significantly predicted information acquisition behavior; however, in 3 experiments, the most successful predictor was the correlational criterion (followed by the Bayesian). Although participants showed sensitivity to task constraints, searching for less information when it was more expensive (Experiment 1) and when under time constraints (Experiment 2), concomitant changes in the relative frequency of acquisition of cues with different information values were not observed. A rational analysis illustrates why such changes in the frequency of acquisition would be beneficial, and reasons for the failure to observe such behavior are discussed.

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

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

[3]  S. Siegel,et al.  Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[4]  D. Lindley.  On a Measure of the Information Provided by an Experiment , 1956 .

[5]  W. Edwards.  Optimal strategies for seeking information: Models for statistics, choice reaction times, and human information processing ☆ , 1965 .

[6]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[7]  Cameron R. Peterson,et al.  Information seeking: Optional versus fixed stopping , 1969 .

[8]  C. Vlek.  Multiple probability learning: Associating events with their probabilities of occurrence , 1970 .

[9]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Comparison of Bayesian and Regression Approaches to the Study of Information Processing in Judgment. , 1971 .

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

[11]  T. Wallsten,et al.  Individual Decision Behavior , 1972 .

[12]  N. Castellan.  Multiple-cue probability learning with irrelevant cues☆ , 1973 .

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

[14]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  A Theory of Memory Retrieval. , 1978 .

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

[16]  Terence Connolly,et al.  Information search in judgment tasks: The effects of unequal cue validity and cost , 1984 .

[17]  D. C. Howell.  Statistical Methods for Psychology , 1987 .

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

[19]  Arnold Upmeyer.  Attitudes and behavioral decisions , 1989 .

[20]  Franz Schmalhofer,et al.  Cognitive Choice Processes and the Attitude-Behavior Relation , 1989 .

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

[22]  D. C. Howell.  Statistical methods for psychology, 3rd ed. , 1992 .

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

[24]  John W. Payne,et al.  The adaptive decision maker: Name index , 1993 .

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

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

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

[28]  R. Nosofsky,et al.  An exemplar-based random walk model of speeded classification. , 1997, Psychological review.

[29]  Keith E. Stanovich,et al.  Individual differences in rational thought. , 1998 .

[30]  Nick Chater,et al.  Rationality In An Uncertain World: Essays In The Cognitive Science Of Human Understanding , 1998 .

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

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

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

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

[35]  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.

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

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

[38]  I. J. Myung,et al.  Toward a method of selecting among computational models of cognition. , 2002, Psychological review.

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

[40]  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.

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

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

[43]  Tim Rakow,et al.  Simple heuristics from the Adaptive Toolbox: Can we perform the requisite learning? , 2004 .

[44]  B. Newell,et al.  Search strategies in decision making: the success of “success” , 2004 .

[45]  B. Newell.  Re-visions of rationality? , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.