Towards Competitive Instead of Biased Testing of Heuristics: A Reply to Hilbig and Richter (2011)
Topics in Cognitive Science 3 (1):197-205 (2011)
| Abstract | Our programmatic article on Homo heuristicus (Gigerenzer & Brighton, 2009) included a methodological section specifying three minimum criteria for testing heuristics: competitive tests, individual-level tests, and tests of adaptive selection of heuristics. Using Richter and Späth’s (2006) study on the recognition heuristic, we illustrated how violations of these criteria can lead to unsupported conclusions. In their comment, Hilbig and Richter conduct a reanalysis, but again without competitive testing. They neither test nor specify the compensatory model of inference they argue for. Instead, they test whether participants use the recognition heuristic in an unrealistic 100% (or 96%) of cases, report that only some people exhibit this level of consistency, and conclude that most people would follow a compensatory strategy. We know of no model of judgment that predicts 96% correctly. The curious methodological practice of adopting an unrealistic measure of success to argue against a competing model, and to interpret such a finding as a triumph for a preferred but unspecified model, can only hinder progress. Marewski, Gaissmaier, Schooler, Goldstein, and Gigerenzer (2010), in contrast, specified five compensatory models, compared them with the recognition heuristic, and found that the recognition heuristic predicted inferences most accurately | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,679 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesBenjamin E. Hilbig & Tobias Richter (2011). Homo Heuristicus Outnumbered: Comment on Gigerenzer and Brighton (2009). Topics in Cognitive Science 3 (1):187-196.
Michael E. Gorman (2000). Heuristics in Technoscientific Thinking. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):752-752.
William C. Wimsatt (2000). Heuristics Refound. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):766-767.
Adam Morton (2000). Heuristics All the Way Up? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):758-759.
Gerd Gigerenzer & Thomas Sturm (2012). How (Far) Can Rationality Be Naturalized? Synthese 187 (1):243-268.
Richard Cooper (2000). Simple Heuristics Could Make Us Smart; but Which Heuristics Do We Apply When? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):746-746.
Carole J. Lee (2007). The Representation of Judgment Heuristics and the Generality Problem. Proceedings of the 29th Annual Cognitive Science Society:1211-6.
Annika Wallin & Peter Gärdenfors (2000). Smart People Who Make Simple Heuristics Work. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):765-765.
Paul C. Kainen (2000). The Role of Mathematics in Heuristic Performance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):755-756.
Nick Chater (2000). How Smart Can Simple Heuristics Be? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):745-746.
Gerd Gigerenzer (1999). Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. Oxford University Press.
Colin Fisher & Shishir Malde (2011). Moral Imagination or Heuristic Toolbox? Events and the Risk Assessment of Structured Financial Products in the Financial Bubble. Business Ethics 20 (2):148-158.
José Luis Bermúdez (2000). Rationality, Logic, and Fast and Frugal Heuristics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):744-745.
Edgar Erdfelder & Martin Brandt (2000). How Good Are Fast and Frugal Inference Heuristics in Case of Limited Knowledge? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):747-748.
Stijn Bruers (forthcoming). Speciesism as a Moral Heuristic. Philosophia:1-13.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-01-11Total downloads13 ( #87,931 of 549,076 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
