Topics in Cognitive Science 3 (1):197-205 (2011)

Authors
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 Homo heuristicus  Recognition heuristic  Biased testing  Simple heuristics
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01124.x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,290
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart.Gerd Gigerenzer, Peter M. Todd & A. B. C. Research Group - 1999 - New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press USA.

View all 7 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Heuristics in Technoscientific Thinking.Michael E. Gorman - 2000 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):752-752.
Heuristics Refound.William C. Wimsatt - 2000 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):766-767.
Heuristics All the Way Up?Adam Morton - 2000 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):758-759.
The Representation of Judgment Heuristics and the Generality Problem.Carole J. Lee - 2007 - Proceedings of the 29th Annual Cognitive Science Society:1211-6.
Smart People Who Make Simple Heuristics Work.Annika Wallin & Peter Gärdenfors - 2000 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):765-765.
The Role of Mathematics in Heuristic Performance.Paul C. Kainen - 2000 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):755-756.
How Smart Can Simple Heuristics Be?Nick Chater - 2000 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):745-746.
Rationality, Logic, and Fast and Frugal Heuristics.José Luis Bermúdez - 2000 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):744-745.
Speciesism as a Moral Heuristic.Stijn Bruers - 2013 - Philosophia 41 (2):489-501.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-01-11

Total views
124 ( #95,478 of 2,518,755 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #408,070 of 2,518,755 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes