The Robust Beauty of Ordinary Information

Psychological Review

Volumn 117, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 1259-1266

  Katsikopoulos, Konstantinos V ^a,b   Schooler, Lael J ^a   Hertwig, Ralph ^c  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

^b Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BASEL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Bootstrapping; Heuristics; Inductive inference; Robustness; Take the best

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; BAYES THEOREM; COGNITION; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HUMAN; INTUITION; LEARNING; MEMORY; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; RECOGNITION;

BAYES THEOREM; CAUSALITY; COGNITION; CUES; HUMANS; INTUITION; LEARNING; MEMORY; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 78249236542     PISSN: 0033295X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0020418     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Brandstätter E., Gigerenzer G., Hertwig R. The priority heuristic: A process model of risky choice. Psychological Review 2006, 113:409-432.
2. Brunswik E. Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review 1955, 62:193-217.
3. Chapman L.J., Chapman J.P. Illusory correlation as an obstacle to the use of valid psychodiagnostic signs. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 1969, 74:271-280.
4. Chater N., Oaksford M., Nakisa R., Redington M. Fast, frugal and rational: How rational norms explain behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 2003, 90:63-86.
5. Condorcet N.C. Essai sur l'application de l'analyse á la probabilité des décisions rendues á la pluralité des voix [Essay on the application of analysis to the probability of majority decisions] 1785, Imprimerie Royale, Paris, France.
6. Czerlinski J., Gigerenzer G., Goldstein D.G. How good are simple heuristics?. Simple heuristics that make us smart 1999, 97-118. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. G. Gigerenzer, P.M. Todd, The ABC Research Group (Eds.).
7. Dawes R.M. The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making. American Psychologist 1979, 34:571-582.
8. Dougherty M.R., Franco-Watkins A.M., Thomas R. Psychological plausibility of the theory of probabilistic mental models and the fast and frugal heuristics. Psychological Review 2008, 115:119-213.
9. García-Retamero R., Hoffrage U., Dieckmann A. When one cue is not enough: Combining fast and frugal heuristics with compound cue processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2007, 60:1197-1215.
10. García-Retamero, R., Takezawa, M., & Gigerenzer, G. (in press). How to learn good cue orders: When social learning benefits simple heuristics. In R. Hertwig, U. Hoffrage, & The ABC Research Group (Eds.), Social heuristics that make us smart. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
11. Gigerenzer G., Brighton H. Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science 2009, 1:107-143.
12. Gigerenzer G., Hoffrage U., Goldstein D.G. Heuristics are plausible models of cognition: Reply to Dougherty, Franco-Watkins, and Thomas (2008). Psychological Review 2008, 115:230-239.
13. Gigerenzer G., Hoffrage U., Kleinbölting H. Probabilistic mental models: A Brunswikian theory of confidence. Psychological Review 1991, 98:506-528.
14. Gigerenzer G., Todd P.M. Simple heuristics that make us smart 1999, The ABC Research Group, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
15. Goldstein D.G., Gigerenzer G. Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic. Psychological Review 2002, 109:75-90.
16. Hastie R., Kameda T. The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions. Psychological Review 2005, 112:494-508.
17. Hertwig R., Herzog S.M., Schooler L.J., Reimer T. Fluency heuristic: A model of how the mind exploits a by-product of information retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2008, 34:1191-1206.
18. Hogarth R.M., Karelaia N. Ignoring information in binary choice with continuous variables: When is less "more" ?. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2005, 49:115-124.
19. Hogarth R.M., Karelaia N. Heuristic and linear models of judgment: Matching rules and environments. Psychological Review 2007, 114:733-758.
20. Irwin J.R., McClelland G.H. Negative consequences of dichotomizing continuous predictor variables. Journal of Market Research 2003, 40:366-371.
21. Juslin P., Persson M. PROBabilities from EXemplars: A "lazy" algorithm for probabilistic inference from generic knowledge. Cognitive Science 2002, 26:563-607.
22. Katsikopoulos K.V., Martignon L. Naïve heuristics for paired comparison: Some results on their relative accuracy. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2006, 50:488-494.
23. Lee M.D., Cummins T.D.R. Evidence accumulation in decision making: Unifying the "take the best" and "rational" models. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2004, 11:343-352.
24. Newell B. Re-visions of rationality?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2005, 9:11-15.
25. Payne J.W., Bettman J.R., Johnson E.J. The adaptive decision maker 1993, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
26. Rakow T., Hinvest N., Jackson E., Palmer M. Simple heuristics from the adaptive toolbox: Can we perform the requisite learning?. Thinking and Reasoning 2004, 10:1-29.
27. Schooler L.J., Hertwig R. How forgetting aids heuristic inference. Psychological Review 2005, 112:610-628.
28. Simon H.A. Rational choice and the structure of environments. Psychological Review 1956, 63:129-138.
29. Tversky A. Elimination of aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review 1972, 79:281-299.
30. Waldmann M.R., Hagmayer Y., Blaisdell A.P. Beyond the information given: Causal models in learning and reasoning. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2006, 15:307-311.