The recognition heuristic: A decade of research

Judgment and Decision Making

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 100-121

  Gigerenzer, Gerd ^a   Goldstein, Daniel G ^b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

^b LONDON BUSINESS SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bounded rationality; Ecological rationality; Heuristics; Inference; Recognition heuristic

Indexed keywords

EID: 79951587259     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19302975     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (99)

1. Anderson J. R., & Lebiere C. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Bass F. M., & Talarzyk W.W. (1972). An attitude model for the study of brand preference. Journal of Marketing Research, 9, 93-96.
3. Beckwith, N. E., & Lehmann, D. R. (1975). The importance of halo effects in multi-attribute attitude models. Journal of Marketing Research, 12, 265-275.
4. Bettman, J. R., & Park, C. W. (1980). Effects of prior knowledge and experience and phase of the choice processon consumer decision analysis: A protocol analysis. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 7, 234-248.
5. Brighton, H. (2006). Robust inference with simple cognitive models. In C. Lebiere & R. Wray (Eds.), Between a rock and a hard place: Cognitive science principles meet AI-hard problems. Papers from the AAAI Spring Symposium. (AAAI Tech. Rep. No. SS-06-03, pp. 17-22). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
6. Brighton, H., & Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Towards competitive instead of biased testing of heuristics: A reply to Hilbig & Richter (2011). Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 197-205.
7. Bröder, A., & Eichler, A. (2006). The use of recognition information and additional cues in inferences from memory. Acta Psychologica, 121, 275-284.
8. Bröder, A., & Schiffer, S. (2006). Stimulus format and working memory in fast and frugal strategy selection. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 361-380.
9. Bröder, A., & Schütz, J. (2009). Recognition ROCs are curvilinear - or are they? On premature arguments against the two-high-threshold model of recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 35, 587-606.
10. Cross, F. R., & Jackson, R. J. (2005). Spider heuristics. Behavioural Processes, 69, 125-127.
11. Czerlinski, J., Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1999). How good are simple heuristics? In G. Gigerenzer, P. M. Todd, & the ABC Research Group, Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 97-118). New York: Oxford University Press.
12. Dawes, R. M. (1979). The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making. American Psychologist, 34, 571-582.
13. Dieckmann, A., & Rieskamp, J. (2007). The influence of information redundancy on probabilistic inferences. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1801-1813.
14. Fishbein, M. (1967). A consideration of beliefs and their role in attitude measurement. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement (pp. 389-400). New York: Wiley.
15. Ford, J. K., Schmitt, N., Schechtman, S. L., Hults, B. H., & Doherty, M. L. (1989). Process tracing methods: Contributions, problems, and neglected research questions. Organizational Behavior and Decision Processes, 43, 75-117.
16. Frosch, C., Beaman, C. P., & McCloy, R. (2007). A little learning is a dangerous thing: An experimental demonstration of ignorance-driven inference. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1329-1336.
17. Galef, B. G., Jr. (1987). Social influences on the identification of toxic food by Norway rats. Animal Learning & Behavior, 15, 327-332.
18. Galef, B. G., Jr., McQuoid, L. M., & Whiskin, E. E. (1990). Further evidence that Norway rats do not socially transmit learned aversions to toxic baits. Animal Learning and Behavior, 18, 199-205.
19. Gigerenzer G., & Brighton H. (2009). Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 107-143.
20. Gigerenzer G., & Goldstein D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103, 650-669.
21. Gigerenzer G., Hell W., & Blank H. (1988). Presentation and content: The use of base rates as a continuous variable. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 513-525.
22. Gigerenzer G., Hertwig R., van den Broek, E., Fasolo B., & Katsikopoulos K. (2005). "A 30% chance of rain tomorrow:" How does the public understand probabilistic weather forecasts? Risk Analysis, 25, 623-629.
23. Gigerenzer, G., Hoffrage, U., & Kleinbölting, H. (1991). Probabilistic mental models: A Brunswikian theory of confidence. Psychological Review, 98, 506-528.
24. Gigerenzer, G., & Richter, H. R. (1990). Context effects and their interaction with development: Area judgments. Cognitive Development, 5, 235-264.
25. Gigerenzer, G., Swijtink, Z., Porter, T., Daston, L., Beatty, J., & Krüger, L. (1989). The empire of chance. How probability changed science and everyday life. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
26. Gilbride, T. J., & Allenby, G. M. (2004). A choice model with conjunctive, disjunctive, and compensatory screening rules. Marketing Science, 23, 391-406.
27. Glöckner, A. & Bröder, A. (2011). Processing of recognition information and additional cues: A model-based analysis of choice, confidence, and response time. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 23-42.
28. Goldstein, D. G. (1997). Models of bounded rationality for inference. Doctoral thesis, The University of Chicago. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(01), 435B. (University Microfilms No. AAT 9720040).
29. Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (1999). The recognition heuristic: How ignorance makes us smart. In G. Gigerenzer, P. M. Todd, & the ABC Research Group, Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 37-58). New York: Oxford University Press.
30. Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic. Psychological Review, 109, 75-90.
31. Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (2009). Fast and frugal forecasting. International Journal of Forecasting, 25, 760-772.
32. Goldstein, D. G., Gigerenzer, G., Hogarth, R. M., Kacelnik, A., Kareev, Y., Klein, G., et al. (2001). Group report: Why and when do simple heuristics work? In G. Gigerenzer & R. Selten (Eds.), Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox (pp. 173-190). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33. Hauser, J. R. (1978). Testing the accuracy, usefulness, and significance of probabilistic models: An information-theoretic approach, Operations Research, 26, 406-421.
34. Hertwig R., Herzog S. M., Schooler L.J.Reimer, T. (2008). Fluency heuristic: A model of how the mind exploits a by-product of information retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1191-1206.
35. Hertwig, R., & Ortmann, A. (2001). Experimental practices in economics: A methodological challenge for psychologists? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 383-451.
36. Hilbig, B. E., & Pohl, R. F. (2008). Recognizing users of the recognition heuristic. Experimental Psychology, 55, 394-401.
37. Hilbig, B. E., & Pohl, R. F. (2009). Ignorance- vs. evidence-based decision making: A decision time analysis of the recognition heuristic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1296-1305.
38. Hilbig, B. E., Pohl, R. F., & Bröder, A. (2009). Criterion knowledge: A moderator of using the recognition heuristic? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22, 510-522.
39. Hoffrage, U. (1995). Zur Angemessenheit subjektiver Sicherheits-Urteile: Eine Exploration der Theorie der probabilistischen mentalen Modelle [The adequacy of subjective confidence judgments: Studies concerning the theory of probabilistic mental models]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Salzburg, Austria.
40. Hoffrage, U. (2011). Recognition judgments and the performance of the recognition heuristic depend on the size of the reference class. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 43-57.
41. Hoffrage, U., Hertwig, R., & Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Hindsight bias: A by-product of knowledge updating? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 566-581.
42. Hogarth, R. M. (1980). Judgement and choice: The psychology of decision. Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons.
43. Hogarth, R. M., & Karelaia, N. (2005). Simple models for multi-attribute choice with many alternatives: When it does and does not pay to face tradeoffs with binary attributes. Management Science, 51, 1860-1872.
44. Hogarth R. M., & Karelaia N. (2006). "Take-the-best" and other simple strategies: Why and when they work "well" with binary cues. Theory and Decision, 61, 205-249.
45. Hoyer, W. D., & Brown, S. P. (1990). Effects of brand awareness on choice for a common, repeat purchase product. Journal of Consumer Research 17, 141-148.
46. Hutchinson, J. M. C., & Gigerenzer, G. (2005). Simple heuristics and rules of thumb: Where psychologists and behavioural biologists might meet. Behavioural Processes, 69, 97-124.
47. Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 306-340.
48. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgments of and by representativeness. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 84-98). New York: Cambridge University Press.
49. Katsikopoulos, K. V., & Martignon, L. (2006). Naïve heuristics for paired comparisons: Some results on their relative accuracy. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 50, 488-494.
50. Laroche, M., Kim, C., & Matsui, T. (2003). Which decision heuristics are used in consideration set formation? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 3, 192-209.
51. Macdonald, E., & Sharp, B. (2000). Brand awareness effects on consumer decision making for a common, repeat purchase product: A replication. Journal of Business Research, 48, 5-15.
52. Malmberg, K. J. (2002). On the form of ROCs constructed from confidence ratings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 380-387.
53. Marewski J. N., Gaissmaier W., Schooler L.J., Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (2009). Do voters use episodic knowledge to rely on recognition? In N.A. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2232-2237). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
54. Marewski J. N., Gaissmaier W., Schooler L.J., Goldstein D.G., & Gigerenzer G. (2010). From recognition to decisions: Extending and testing recognitionbased models for multi-alternative inference. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 17, 287-309.
55. Marewski J.N.,Schooler L.J. (2011). How memory aids strategy selection. Unpublished manuscript.
56. Martignon L., & Hoffrage U. (1999). Why does onereason decision making work? A case study in ecological rationality. In G. Gigerenzer, P. M. Todd, & the ABC Research Group, Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 119-140). New York: Oxford University Press.
57. Martignon, L., & Hoffrage, U. (2002). Fast, frugal, andfit: Lexicographic heuristics for paired comparison. Theory and Decision, 52, 29-71.
58. Mata R., Schooler L.J.,Rieskamp J. (2007). The aging decision maker: Cognitive aging and the adaptive selection of decision strategies. Psychology and Aging, 22, 796-810.
59. McCloy, R., Beaman, C. P., & Smith, P. T. (2008). The relative success of recognition-based inference in multichoice decisions. Cognitive Science, 32, 1037-1048.
60. McGrath, R. E. (2008). Predictor combination in binary decision-making situations. Psychological Assessment, 20, 195-205.
61. McNamara, J. M., & Houston, A. I. (2009). Integrating function and mechanism. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24, 670-675.
62. Mischel, W. (2006). Bridges toward a cumulative psychological science. In Paul A. M. Van Lange (Ed.) Bridging social psychology: Benefits of transdisciplinary approaches (p. 437-446). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
63. Newell, B. R., & Fernandez, D. (2006). On the binary quality of recognition and the inconsequentiality of further knowledge: Two critical tests of the recognition heuristic. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 333-346.
64. Newell, B. R., & Shanks, D. R. (2004). On the role of recognition in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 923-935.
65. Oppenheimer, D. (2003). Not so fast! (and not so frugal!): Rethinking the recognition heuristic. Cognition 90, B1-B9.
66. Ortmann, A., Gigerenzer, G., Borges, B., & Goldstein, D. G. (2008). The recognition heuristic: A fast and frugal way to investment choice? In C. R. Plott & V. L. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics results: Vol. 1 (Handbooks in Economics No. 28) (pp. 993-1003). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
67. Pachur, T., & Biele, G. (2007). Forecasting from ignorance: The use and usefulness of recognition in lay predictions of sports events. Acta Psychologica, 125, 99-116
68. Pachur, T., Bröder, A., & Marewski, J. N. (2008). The recognition heuristic in memory-based inference: Is recognition a non-compensatory cue? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21, 183-210.
69. Pachur, T., & Hertwig, R. (2006). On the psychology of the recognition heuristic: Retrieval primacy as a key determinant of its use. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 983-1002.
70. Pachur T., Mata R.,Schooler L.J. (2009). Cognitive aging and the adaptive use of recognition in decision making. Psychology and Aging, 24, 901-915.
71. Payne, J.W. (1976). Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16, 366-387.
72. Payne, J.W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
73. Pleskac, T. J. (2007). A signal detection analysis of the recognition heuristic. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 379-391
74. Pohl, R. F. (2006) Empirical tests of the recognition heuristic. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 251-271.
75. Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (1989). Similarity information versus relational information: Differences in the time course of retrieval. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 139-155.
76. Reimer, T., & Katsikopoulos, K. 2004. The use of recognition in group decision-making. Cognitive Science, 28, 1009-1029.
77. Richter, T., & Späth, P. (2006). Recognition is used as one cue among others in judgment and decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning Memory and Cognition, 32,1501-1562.
78. Rieskamp, J., & Otto, P. E. (2006). SSL: A theory of how people learn to select strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 207-236.
79. Roberts, J. H., & Lattin, J. M. (1991), Development and testing of a model of consideration set composition, Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 429-440.
80. Scheibehenne, B., & Bröder, A. (2007). Predicting Wimbledon 2005 tennis results by mere player name recognition. International Journal of Forecasting, 23, 415-426.
81. Schooler L.J.,Hertwig R. (2005). How forgetting aids heuristic inference. Psychological Review, 112, 610-628.
82. Serwe, S., & Frings, C. (2006). Who will win Wimbledon? The recognition heuristic in predicting sports events. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 321-322.
83. Shaffer, D. M., Krauchunas, S. M., Eddy, M., & McBeath, M. K. (2004). How dogs navigate to catch Frisbees. Psychological Science, 15, 437-441.
84. Shettleworth, S. J. (2005). Taking the best for learning. Behavioural Processes, 69, 147-149.
85. Shocker, A. D., Ben-Akiva, M., Boccara, B., & Nedungadi, P. (1991). Consideration set influences on consumer decision making and choice: Issues, models, and suggestions, Marketing Letters, 2, 181-197
86. Shrager, J., & Siegler, R. S. (1998). SCADS: A model of strategy choice and strategy discovery. Psychological Science, 9, 405-410.
87. Simon H.A. (1990). lnvariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 1-19.
88. Simon, H. A. (1999). Appraisal, Back cover of G. Gigerenzer, P. M. Todd, & the ABC Research Group. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.
89. Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., 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 (Vol. 2, pp. 397-420). New York: Cambridge University Press.
90. Slovic, P., Monahan, J., & MacGregor, D. G. (2000). Violence risk assessment and risk communication: The effects of using actual cases, providing instruction, and employing probability versus frequency formats. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 271-296.
91. Snook, B., & Cullen, R. M. (2006). Recognizing national hockey league greatness with an ignorancebased heuristic. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 33-43.
92. Stevens, J. &King, A. (in press). The life of others: Social rationality in animals. In Hertwig, R., Hoffrage, U.the ABC Research Group. Simple heuristics in a social world. New York: Oxford University Press.
93. Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79, 281-299.
94. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.
95. Volz K. G., Schubotz R. I., Raab M., Schooler L. J., Gigerenzer, G., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2006). Why you think Milan is larger than Modena: Neural correlates of the recognition heuristic. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1924-1936.
96. Wallsten, T. S. (1983). The theoretical status of judgmental heuristics. In R. W. Scholz (Ed.), Decision making under uncertainty (pp. 21-39). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
97. Wason, P. C. (1971). Natural and contrived experience in a reasoning problem. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23, 63-71.
98. Yonelinas, A. P., Otten, L. J., Shaw, K. N., & Rugg, M. D. (2005). Separating the brain regions involved in recollection and familiarity in recognition memory. Journal of Neuroscience, 25, 3002-3008.
99. Zhu, L. & Gigerenzer, G. (2006). Children can solve Bayesian problems: The role of representation in mental computation. Cognition, 98, 287-308.