The path of least resistance: Using easy-to-access information

Current Directions in Psychological Science

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 232-236

  Shah, Anuj K ^a   Oppenheimer, Daniel M ^a  

^a PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cue weighting; Decision making; Effort reduction; Fluency; Judgment

Indexed keywords

EID: 69949124393     PISSN: 09637214     EISSN: 14678721     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01642.x     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). (See References). New York: Cambridge University Press. Explains when highly accessible information is substituted for less accessible information to answer difficult judgments.
2. Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R., & Johnson, E.J. (1993). (See References). A thorough study of heuristic components and environments that are suited to various heuristics.
3. Shah, A.K., & Oppenheimer, D.M. (2008). (See References). A framework for understanding how strategies for saving effort underlie numerous heuristics.
4. Axsom, D., Yates, S. Chaiken, S. (1987). Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 30 40.
5. Day, S.B. Bartels, D. (2005). The effects of prior use on preference. In B.G. Bara, L. Barsalou M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, July 21-23 (pp. 553 558). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
6. Forehand, M., Gastil, J. Smith, M.A. (2004). Endorsements as voting cues: Heuristic and systematic processing in initiative elections. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2215 2233.
7. Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P.M. the ABC Research Group. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
8. Herzog, S.M., Hansen, J. Wänke, M. (2007). Temporal distance and ease of retrieval. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 483 488.
9. Hsee, C.K. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 247 257.
10. Kahneman, D. Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49 81). New York : Cambridge University Press.
11. Maheswaran, D., Mackie, D.M. Chaiken, S. (1992). Brand name as a heuristic cue: The effects of task importance and expectancy confirmation on consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1, 317 336.
12. Mandel, N. Johnson, E.J. (2002). When Web pages influence choice: Effects of visual primes on experts and novices. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 235 245.
13. Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R. Johnson, E.J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. New York : Cambridge University Press.
14. Shah, A.K. Oppenheimer, D.M. (2007). Easy does it: The role of fluency in cue weighting. Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 371 379.
15. Shah, A.K. Oppenheimer, D.M. (2008). Heuristics made easy: An effort-reduction framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 207 222.
16. Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E. MacGregor, D.G. (2002). The affect heuristic. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 397 420). New York : Cambridge University Press.
17. Trope, Y., Liberman, N. Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 83 95.
18. Tulving, E. Pearlstone, Z. (1966). Availability versus accessibility of information in memory for words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Behavior, 5, 381 391.
19. Tversky, A. Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124 1131.
20. Tversky, A. Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293 315.
21. Zhang, S. Markman, A.B. (2001). Processing product unique features: Alignability and involvement in preference construction. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11, 13 27. (Pubitemid 33664128)