Topics in Cognitive Science 3 (1):197-205 (2011)
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)|
References found in this work BETA
Homo Heuristicus: Why Biased Minds Make Better Inferences.Gerd Gigerenzer & Henry Brighton - 2009 - Topics in Cognitive Science 1 (1):107-143.
Citations of this work BETA
Memory‐Based Simple Heuristics as Attribute Substitution: Competitive Tests of Binary Choice Inference Models.Hidehito Honda, Toshihiko Matsuka & Kazuhiro Ueda - 2016 - Cognitive Science 40 (8).
Similar books and articles
Homo Heuristicus Outnumbered: Comment on Gigerenzer and Brighton (2009).Benjamin E. Hilbig & Tobias Richter - 2011 - Topics in Cognitive Science 3 (1):187-196.
Heuristics in Technoscientific Thinking.Michael E. Gorman - 2000 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):752-752.
How (Far) Can Rationality Be Naturalized?Gerd Gigerenzer & Thomas Sturm - 2012 - Synthese 187 (1):243-268.
Simple Heuristics Could Make Us Smart; but Which Heuristics Do We Apply When?Richard Cooper - 2000 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):746-746.
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.
Moral Imagination or Heuristic Toolbox? Events and the Risk Assessment of Structured Financial Products in the Financial Bubble.Colin Fisher & Shishir Malde - 2011 - Business Ethics 20 (2):148-158.
Rationality, Logic, and Fast and Frugal Heuristics.José Luis Bermúdez - 2000 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):744-745.
How Good Are Fast and Frugal Inference Heuristics in Case of Limited Knowledge?Edgar Erdfelder & Martin Brandt - 2000 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):747-748.
Added to index2011-01-11
Total downloads75 ( #66,473 of 2,146,177 )
Recent downloads (6 months)28 ( #10,728 of 2,146,177 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.