The high availability of extreme events serves resource-rational decision-making

Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, CogSci 2014

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 2567-2572

  Lieder, Falk ^a   Hsu, Ming ^b   Griffiths, Thomas L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

availability; Bayesian; bounded rationality; cognitive biases; decision making; heuristics; judgment

Indexed keywords

AVAILABILITY; BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

BAYESIAN; BOUNDED RATIONALITY; COGNITIVE BIAS; COGNITIVE RESOURCES; DECISIONS MAKINGS; EXTREME EVENTS; HEURISTIC; HIGH AVAILABILITY; JUDGMENT; RATIONAL DECISION MAKING;

DECISION MAKING;

EID: 85015536997     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (31)

1. Bordalo, P., Gennaioli, N., & Shleifer, A. (2012). Salience theory of choice under risk. Q. J. Econ., 127(3), 1243-1285.
2. Denison, S., Bonawitz, E., Gopnik, A., & Griffiths, T. (2013). Rational variability in childrens causal inferences: The sampling hypothesis. Cognition, 126(2), 285-300.
3. Erev, I., Ert, E., Roth, A. E., Haruvy, E., Herzog, S. M., Hau, R., ... Lebiere, C. (2010). A choice prediction competition: Choices from experience and from description. J. Behav. Decis. Making, 23(1), 15-47.
4. Fiser, J., Berkes, P., Orbán, G., & Lengyel, M. (2010). Statistically optimal perception and learning: from behavior to neural representations. Trends Cogn. Sci., 14(3), 119-130.
5. Geweke, J. (1989). Bayesian inference in econometric models using Monte Carlo integration. Econometrica, 57(6), 1317-1339.
6. Gigerenzer, G. (2008a). Rationality for mortals: How people cope with uncertainty. Oxford University Press.
7. Gigerenzer, G. (2008b). Why heuristics work. Perspect. Pschol. Sci., 3(1), 20-29.
8. Gigerenzer, G., & Brighton, H. (2009). Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Top. Cogn. Sci., 1(1), 107-143.
9. Griffiths, T. L., Lieder, F., & Goodman, N. D. (in review). Levels of analysis between the computational and the algorithmic. Top. Cogn. Sci..
10. Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2006). Optimal predictions in everyday cognition. Psychol. Sci., 17(9), 767-773.
11. Hammersley, D. C., & Handscomb, J. M. (1964). Monte Carlo methods. London: Methuen & Co Ltd.
12. Harman, G. (2013). Rationality. In H. LaFollette, J. Deigh, & S. Stroud (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Ethics. Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
13. Hertwig, R., Pachur, T., & Kurzenhäuser, S. (2005). Judgments of risk frequencies: tests of possible cognitive mechanisms. J. Exp. Psychol.-Learn. Mem. Cogn., 31(4), 621.
14. Hobson, C. J., & Delunas, L. (2001). National norms and life-event frequencies for the revised social readjustment rating scale. Int. J. Stress Manag., 8(4), 299-314.
15. Hobson, C. J., Kamen, J., Szostek, J., Nethercut, C. M., Tiedmann, J. W., & Wojnarowicz, S. (1998). Stressful life events: A revision and update of the social readjustment rating scale. Int. J. Stress Manag., 5(1), 1-23.
16. Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (1971). Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. J. Exp. Psychol., 89(1), 46-55.
17. Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Layman, M., & Combs, B. (1978). Judged frequency of lethal events. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem., 4(6), 551.
18. Lieder, F., Goodman, N. D., & Griffiths, T. L. (2013). Reverse-engineering resource-efficient algorithms [Paper presented at NIPS-2013 Workshop Resource-Efficient ML, Lake Tahoe, USA].
19. Lieder, F., Griffiths, T. L., & Goodman, N. D. (2013). Burn-in, bias, and the rationality of anchoring. In P. Bartlett, F. C. N. Pereira, L. Bottou, C. J. C. Burges, & K. Q. Weinberger (Eds.), Adv. neural inf. process. syst. 26. Red Hook: Curran Associates, Inc.
20. Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1982). Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Econ. J., 92(368), 805-824.
21. Rasmussen, B. K., Jensen, R., Schroll, M., & Olesen, J. (1991). Epidemiology of headache in a general populationa prevalence study. J. Clin. Epidemiol., 44(11), 1147-1157.
22. Rothman, A. J., Klein, W. M., & Weinstein, N. D. (1996). Absolute and relative biases in estimations of personal risk. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol., 26(14), 1213-1236.
23. Shi, L., & Griffiths, T. (2009). Neural implementation of hierarchical Bayesian inference by importance sampling. In Y. Bengio, D. Schuurmans, J. Lafferty, C. K. I. Williams, & A. Culotta (Eds.), Adv. neural inf. process. syst. 22 (pp. 1669-1677). Red Hook: Curran Associates, Inc.
24. Shi, L., Griffiths, T., Feldman, N., & Sanborn, A. (2010). Exemplar models as a mechanism for performing Bayesian inference. Psychon. Bull. Rev., 17(4), 443-464.
25. Stewart, N., Chater, N., & Brown, G. D. (2006). Decision by sampling. Cogn. Psychol., 53(1), 1-26.
26. Sunstein, C. R., & Zeckhauser, R. (2011). Overreaction to fearsome risks. Environ. Resour. Econ., 48(3), 435-449.
27. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn. Psychol., 5(2), 207-232.
28. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertain., 5(4), 297-323.
29. Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). The theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton university press.
30. Vul, E., Goodman, N. D., Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2014). One and done? Optimal decisions from very few samples. Cognitive Sci., 1-39.
31. Zabaras, N. (2010). Importance sampling (Tech. Rep.). Cornell University. Retrieved from http://mpdc.mae.cornell.edu/Courses/UQ/ImportanceSampling.pdf