Psychological Heuristics for Making Inferences: Definition, Performance, and the Emerging Theory and Practice

References

• Ackoff R. L. The future of operational research is past. J. Oper. Res. Soc. (1979) 30(2):93–104Crossref, Google Scholar
• Astebro T., Elhedhli S. The effectiveness of simple decision heuristics: Forecasting commercial success for early-stage ventures. Management Sci. (2006) 52(3):395–409Link, Google Scholar
• Baucells M., Carrasco J. A., Hogarth R. M. Cumulative dominance and heuristic performance in binary multiattribute choice. Oper. Res. (2008) 56(5):1289–1304Link, Google Scholar
• Bell D. E., Raiffa H., Tversky A.Decision Making: Descriptive, Normative, and Prescriptive Interactions (1988) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bellman R. E.An Introduction to Artificial Intelligence: Can Computers Think? (1978) (Boyd and Fraser, San Francisco) Google Scholar
• Benartzi S., Thaler R. H. Naïve diversification strategies in defined contribution saving plans. Amer. Econom. Rev. (2001) 91(1):79–98Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ben-Yashar R. C., Nitzan S. I. The optimal decision rule for fixed-size committees in dichotomous choice situations: The general result. Internat. Econom. Rev. (1997) 38(1):175–186Crossref, Google Scholar
• Binmore K.Rational Decisions (2009) (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) Google Scholar
• Bobko P., Roth P. L., Buster M. A. The usefulness of unit weights in creating composite scores: A literature review, application to content validity, and meta-analysis. Organ. Res. Methods (2007) 10(4):689–709Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boyd M. On ignorance, intuition, and investing: A bear market test of the recognition heuristic. J. Psych. Financial Markets (2001) 2(3):150–156Crossref, Google Scholar
• Breiman L., Friedman J., Stone C. J., Olshen R. A.Classification and Regression Trees (1984) (Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton, FL) Google Scholar
• Brighton H., Lebiere C., Wray R. Robust inference with simple cognitive models. AAAI Spring Symposium: Cognitive Science Principles Meet AI-Hard Problems (2006) (AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA) 17–22Google Scholar
• Broeder A., Newell B. R. Challenging some common beliefs: Empirical work within the adaptive toolbox metaphor. Judgment Decision Making (2008) 3(3):205–214Google Scholar
• Camerer C. General conditions for the success of bootstrapping models. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (1981) 27(3):411–422Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carrasco J. A., Baucells M. Tight upper bounds for the expected loss of lexicographic heuristics in binary multiattribute choice. Math. Soc. Sci. (2008) 55(2):156–189Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chater N., Oaksford M., Nakisa R., Redington M. Fast, frugal and rational: How rational norms explain behavior. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (2003) 90(1):63–86Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cook L. The World Trade Center attack—The paramedic response: An insider's view. Critical Care (2001) 5(6):301–303Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cooper G. F. The computational complexity of probabilistic inference using Bayesian belief networks. Artificial Intelligence (1990) 42(2–3):393–405Crossref, Google Scholar
• Czerlinski J., Gigerenzer G., Goldstein D. G., Gigerenzer G., Todd P. M., ABC Research Group . How good are simple heuristics? Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart (1999) (Oxford University Press, New York) 97–118Google Scholar
• Davis-Stober C. P., Dana J., Budescu D. V. A constrained linear estimator for multiple regression. Psychometrika (2010a) 75(3):521–541Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis-Stober C. P., Dana J., Budescu D. V. Why recognition is rational: Optimality results on single-variable decision rules. Judgment Decision Making (2010b) 5(4):216–229Google Scholar
• Dawes R. M. The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making. Amer. Psychologist (1979) 34(7):571–582Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dawes R. M., Corrigan B. Linear models in decision making. Psych. Bull. (1974) 81(2):95–106Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dawes R. M., Faust D., Meehl P. E. Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science (1989) 243(4899):1668–1674Crossref, Google Scholar
• DeMiguel V., Garlappi L., Uppal R. Optimal versus naive diversification: How inefficient is the 1/N portfolio strategy? Rev. Financial Stud. (2009a) 22(5):1915–1953Crossref, Google Scholar
• DeMiguel V., Garlappi L., Nogales F. J., Uppal R. A generalized approach to portfolio optimization: Improving performance by constraining portfolio norms. Management Sci. (2009b) 55(5):798–812Link, Google Scholar
• Domingos P., Pazzani M. On the optimality of the simple Bayesian classifier under zero-one loss. Machine Learn. (1997) 29(2–3):103–130Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dorans N., Drasgow F. Alternative weighting schemes for linear prediction. Organ. Behav. Human Performance (1978) 21(3):316–345Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dougherty M. R., Franco-Watkins A. M., Thomas R. Psychological plausibility of the theory of probabilistic mental models and the fast and frugal heuristics. Psych. Rev. (2008) 115(1):199–213Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edwards W., Fasolo B. Decision technology. Annual Rev. Psych. (2001) 52(1):581–606Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ehrenberg A. S. C.Repeat-Buying: Theory and Applications (1982) (Griffin, London) Google Scholar
• Ehrenberg A. S. C. How good is best? J. Roy. Statist. Soc., Ser. A (1988) 145(3):364–366Crossref, Google Scholar
• Einhorn H. J. The use of nonlinear, noncompensatory models in decision making. Psych. Bull. (1970) 73(3):221–230Crossref, Google Scholar
• Einhorn H. J., Hogarth R. M. Unit weighting schemes for decision making. Organ. Behav. Human Performance (1975) 13(2):171–192Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elwyn G., Edwards A., Eccles M., Rovner D. Decision analysis in patient care. Lancet (2001) 358(9281):571–574Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fasolo B., McClelland G. H., Todd P. M. Escaping the tyranny of choice: When fewer attributes make choice easier. Marketing Theory (2007) 7(1):13–26Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fernandez J. P., Katsikopoulos K. V., Shubitizde F. Simple geometric heuristics for the detection of unexploded ordnance. (2010) . Working paper, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NHGoogle Scholar
• Fischer J. E., Steiner F., Zucol F., Berger C., Martignon L., Bossart W., Altwegg M., Nadal D. Use of simple heuristics to target macrolide prescription in children with community-acquired pneumonia. Arch. Pediatrics Adolescent Medicine (2002) 156(10):1005–1008Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fishburn P. C. Lexicographic orders, utilities and decision rules: A survey. Management Sci. (1974) 20(11):1442–1471Link, Google Scholar
• Fishburn P. C. Foundations of decision analysis: Along the way. Management Sci. (1989) 35(4):387–405Link, Google Scholar
• Ford J., Schmitt N., Schechtman S. L., Hults B. H., Dogherty M. L. Process tracing methods: Contributions, problems, and neglected research questions. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (1989) 43(1):75–117Crossref, Google Scholar
• Geman S., Bienenstock E., Doursat E. Neural networks and the bias/variance dilemma. Neural Comput. (1992) 4(1):1–58Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer G., Gigerenzer G., Selten R. The adaptive toolbox. Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox (2001) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) 37–50Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer G., Brighton H. Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in Cognitive Sci. (2009) 1(1):107–143Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer G., Gaissmaier W. Heuristic decision making in individuals and organizations. Annual Rev. Psych. (2011) . ForthcomingCrossref, Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer G., Goldstein D. G. Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psych. Rev. (1996) 103(4):650–669Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer G., Todd P. M., Gigerenzer G., Todd P. M., ABC Research Group . Fast and frugal heuristics: The adaptive toolbox. Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart (1999) (Oxford University Press, New York) 3–34Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer G., Todd P. M.ABC Research GroupSimple Heuristics That Make Us Smart (1999) (Oxford University Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Goldstein D. G., Gigerenzer G. Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic. Psych. Rev. (2002) 109:75–90Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goldstein D. G., Gigerenzer G. Fast and frugal forecasting. Internat. J. Forecasting (2009) 25(4):760–772Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green L., Mehr D. R. What alters physicians' decisions to admit to the coronary care unit? J. Family Practice (1997) 45(3):219–226Google Scholar
• Grofman B., Owen G.Information Pooling and Group Decision Making: Proc. Second University of California Irvine Conference on Political Economy (1986) (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT) Google Scholar
• Groner M., Groner R., Bischof W. F., Groner R. Approaches to heuristics: A historical review. Methods of Heuristics (1983) (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ) 1–18Google Scholar
• Grove W. M., Zald D. H., Lebow B. S., Snitz B. E., Nelson C. Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psych. Assessment (2000) 12(1):19–30Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hammond K. R.Beyond Rationality: The Search for Wisdom in a Troubled Time (2007) (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK) Google Scholar
• Hastie R., Kameda T. The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions. Psych. Rev. (2005) 112(2):494–508Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hillier F. S., Lieberman G. J.Introduction to Operations Research (2001) (McGraw Hill, New York) Google Scholar
• Hogarth R. M., Todd P. M., Gigerenzer G., ABC Research Group . When simple is hard to acceptEcological Rationality: Intelligence in the World (2011) (Oxford University Press, New York) . ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
• Hogarth R. M., Karelaia N. Simple models for multiattribute choice with many alternatives: When it does and does not pay to face trade-offs with binary attributes. Management Sci. (2005a) 51(12):1860–1872Link, Google Scholar
• Hogarth R. M., Karelaia N. Ignoring information in binary choice with continuous variables: When is less “more”? J. Math. Psych. (2005b) 49(2):115–124Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hogarth R. M., Karelaia N. Regions of rationality: Maps for bounded agents. Decision Anal. (2006a) 3(3):124–144Link, Google Scholar
• Hogarth R. M., Karelaia N. “Take-the-best” and other simple strategies: Why and when they work “well” with binary cues. Theory Decision (2006b) 61(3):205–249Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hogarth R. M., Karelaia N. Heuristic and linear models of judgment: Matching rules and environments. Psych. Rev. (2007) 114(3):733–758Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holte R. C. Very simple classification rules perform well on most commonly used data sets. Machine Learn. (1993) 3(11):63–91Crossref, Google Scholar
• Howard R. A. The foundations of decision analysis. IEEE Trans. Systems Sci. Cybernetics (1968) 4(3):211–219Crossref, Google Scholar
• Juslin P., Persson M. PROBabilities from EXemplars: A “lazy” algorithm for probabilistic inference from generic knowledge. Cognitive Sci. (2002) 26:563–607Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D., Slovic P., Tversky A.Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (1982) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karelaia N., Hogarth R. M. Determinants of linear judgment: A meta-analysis of lens model studies. Psych. Bull. (2008) 134(3):404–426Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katsikopoulos K. V. Heuristic choice with binary attributes: Model-based and model-free analyses. (2010a) . Working paper, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, BerlinGoogle Scholar
• Katsikopoulos K. V. The less-is-more effect: Predictions and tests. Judgment Decision Making (2010b) 5(4):244–257Google Scholar
• Katsikopoulos K. V., Fasolo B. New tools for decision analysts. IEEE Trans. Systems, Man, Cybernetics: Systems Humans (2006) 36(5):960–967Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katsikopoulos K. V., Martignon L. Naïve heuristics for paired comparison: Some results on their relative accuracy. J. Math. Psych. (2006) 50:488–494Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katsikopoulos K. V., Schooler L. J., Hertwig R. The robust beauty of mediocre information. Psych. Rev. (2010) 117(4):1259–1266Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katsikopoulos K. V., Pachur T., Machery E., Wallin A. From Meehl (1954) to fast and frugal heuristics (and back): New insights into how to bridge the clinical-actuarial divide. Theory Psych. (2008) 18(4):443–464Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kattah J. C., Talkad A. V., Wang D. Z., Hsieh Y. H., Newman-Stoker D. E. HINTS to diagnose stroke in the acute vestibular syndrome: Three-step bedside oculmotor examination more sensitive than early MRI diffusion-weighted imaging. Stroke (2009) 40(11):3504–3510Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keeney R. L., Raiffa H.Decision-Making with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs (1976) (Wiley, New York) Google Scholar
• Keren G., Newman J. R. Additional considerations with regard to multiple-regression and equal weighting. Organ. Behav. Human Performance (1978) 22(2):143–164Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kimball G. E. A critique of operations research. J. Washington Acad. Sci. (1958) 48(2):33–37Google Scholar
• Kirkwood C. W., Sarin R. K. Ranking with partial information: A method and application. Oper. Res. (1985) 33(1):193–204Link, Google Scholar
• Klein G. A., Calderwood R. Decision models: Some lessons from the field. IEEE Trans. Systems, Man, Cybernetics (1991) 21(5):1018–1026Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kleinmuntz B. Why we still use our heads instead of formulas: Toward an integrative approach. Psych. Bull. (1990) 107(3):296–310Crossref, Google Scholar
• Laland K. N., Gigerenzer G., Selten R. Imitation, social learning, and preparedness as mechanisms of bounded rationality. Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox (2001) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) 233–247Google Scholar
• Lee M. D., Forbus K., Gentner D., Regier T. An efficient method for the minimum description length evaluation of cognitive models. Proc. 26th Annual Conf. Cognitive Sci. Soc. (2004) (Mahwah, Erlbaum, NJ) 807–812Google Scholar
• Lee M. D., Loughlin N., Lundberg I. B. Applying one-reason decision-making: The prioritisation of literature searches. Australian J. Psych. (2002) 54(3):137–143Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li X., Sudarsanam N., Frey D. D. Regularities in data from factorial experiments. Complexity (2006) 11(5):32–45Crossref, Google Scholar
• Long W. J., Griffith J. L., Selker H. P., D'Agostino R. B. A comparison of logistic regression to decision-tree induction in a medical domain. Comput. Biomedical Res. (1993) 26(1):74–97Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lovie A. D., Lovie P. The flat maximum effect and linear scoring models for prediction. J. Forecasting (1986) 5(3):159–168Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luan S., Schooler L. J., Gigerenzer G. A signal detection analysis of fast and frugal trees. Psych Rev. (2011) . ForthcomingCrossref, Google Scholar
• Magee C., Frey D. D. Experimentation and its role in engineering design: Linking a student design exercise with new results from cognitive psychology. Internat. J. Engrg. Ed. (2006) 22(3):478–488Google Scholar
• Makridakis S., Hibon M. Accuracy of forecasting: An empirical investigation (with discussion). J. Roy. Statist. Soc., Ser. A (1979) 142(2):79–145Crossref, Google Scholar
• Makridakis S., Taleb N. Decision making and planning under low levels of predictability. Internat. J. Forecasting (2009) 25(4):716–733Crossref, Google Scholar
• March J. G. Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. Bell J. Econom. (1978) 9(2):587–608Crossref, Google Scholar
• Markowitz H. M. Portfolio selection. J. Finance (1952) 7(1):77–91Google Scholar
• Martignon L., Hoffrage U. Fast, frugal, and fit: Simple heuristics for paired comparison. Theory Decision (2002) 52(1):29–71Crossref, Google Scholar
• Martignon L., Katsikopoulos K. V., Woike J. Categorization with limited resources: A family of simple heuristics. J. Math. Psych. (2008) 52(6):352–361Crossref, Google Scholar
• Martignon L., Vitouch O., Takezawa M., Forster M., Hardman D., Macchi L. Naive and yet enlightened: From natural frequencies to fast and frugal trees. Thinking: Psychological Perspectives on Reasoning, Judgment, and Decision Making (2003) (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK) 189–211Google Scholar
• McCammon I., Haegeli P. An evaluation of rule-based decision tools for travel in avalanche terrain. Cold Regions Sci. Tech. (2007) 47(1–2):193–206Crossref, Google Scholar
• McGrath R. E. Predictor combination in binary decision-making situations. Psych. Assessment (2008) 20(3):195–205Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meehl P. E.Clinical Versus Statistical Prediction: A Theoretical Analysis and a Review of the Evidence (1954) (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ortmann A., Gigerenzer G., Borges B., Goldstein D. G., Plott C. R., Smith V. L. The recognition heuristic: A fast and frugal way to investment choice? Handbook of Experimental Economics Results (2008) 1(North-Holland, Amsterdam) 993–1003Crossref, Google Scholar
• Payne J. W., Bettman , Johnson E. J.The Adaptive Decision Maker (1993) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pearson S. D., Goldman L., Garcia T. B., Cook E. F., Lee T. H. Physician response to a prediction rule for the triage of emergency department patients with chest pain. J. General Internal Medicine (1994) 9(5):241–247Crossref, Google Scholar
• Quinlan J. R. Decision trees and decision-making. IEEE Trans. Systems, Man Cybernetics (1990) 20(2):339–346Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reilly B. M., Evans A. T., Schaider J. J., Das K., Calvin J. E., Moran I. A., Roberts R. R., Martinez E. Impact of a clinical decision rule on hospital triage of patients with suspected acute cardiac ischemia in the emergency department. J. Amer. Medical Assoc. (2002) 288(3):342–350Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reimer T., Hoffrage U. The ecological rationality of simple group heuristics: Effects of group member strategies on decision accuracy. Theory Decision (2006) 60(4):403–438Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reimer T., Katsikopoulos K. V. The use of recognition in group decision-making. Cognitive Sci. (2004) 28:1009–1029Crossref, Google Scholar
• Savage L. J.The Foundations of Statistics (1954) (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT) Google Scholar
• Shah A. K., Oppenheimer D. M. Heuristics made easy: An effort-reduction framework. Psych. Bull. (2008) 134(2):207–222Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simon H. A. A behavioral model of rational choice. Quart. J. Econom. (1955) 69(1):99–118Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simon H. A. Rational choice and the structure of environments. Psych. Rev. (1956) 63:129–138Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smithson M. When less is more in the recognition heuristic. Judgment Decision Making (2010) 5(4):230–243Google Scholar
• Snook B., Zito M., Bennell C., Taylor P. J. On the complexity and accuracy of geographic profiling strategies. J. Quant. Criminology (2005) 21(1):1–16Crossref, Google Scholar
• Srivastava J., Connolly T., Beach L. R. Do ranks suffice? A comparison of alternative weighting approaches in value elicitation. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (1995) 63(1):112–116Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thorngate W. Efficient decision heuristics. Behav. Sci. (1980) 25(3):219–225Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science (1974) 185(4157):1124–1131Crossref, Google Scholar
• Von Winterfeldt D., Edwards W. Costs and payoffs in perceptual research. (1973) . Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
• Wainer H. Estimating coefficients in linear models: It don't make no nevermind. Psych. Bull. (1976) 83(2):213–217Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wilks S. S. Weighting systems for linear functions of correlated variables when there is no dependent variable. Psychometrika (1938) 3(1):23–40Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wuebben M., von Wagenheim F. Instant customer base analysis: Managerial heuristics often “get it right”. J. Marketing (2008) 72(3):82–93Crossref, Google Scholar