Literature DB >> 15845293

Simple heuristics and rules of thumb: where psychologists and behavioural biologists might meet.

John M C Hutchinson1, Gerd Gigerenzer.   

Abstract

The Centre for Adaptive Behaviour and Cognition (ABC) has hypothesised that much human decision-making can be described by simple algorithmic process models (heuristics). This paper explains this approach and relates it to research in biology on rules of thumb, which we also review. As an example of a simple heuristic, consider the lexicographic strategy of Take The Best for choosing between two alternatives: cues are searched in turn until one discriminates, then search stops and all other cues are ignored. Heuristics consist of building blocks, and building blocks exploit evolved or learned abilities such as recognition memory; it is the complexity of these abilities that allows the heuristics to be simple. Simple heuristics have an advantage in making decisions fast and with little information, and in avoiding overfitting. Furthermore, humans are observed to use simple heuristics. Simulations show that the statistical structures of different environments affect which heuristics perform better, a relationship referred to as ecological rationality. We contrast ecological rationality with the stronger claim of adaptation. Rules of thumb from biology provide clearer examples of adaptation because animals can be studied in the environments in which they evolved. The range of examples is also much more diverse. To investigate them, biologists have sometimes used similar simulation techniques to ABC, but many examples depend on empirically driven approaches. ABC's theoretical framework can be useful in connecting some of these examples, particularly the scattered literature on how information from different cues is integrated. Optimality modelling is usually used to explain less detailed aspects of behaviour but might more often be redirected to investigate rules of thumb.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15845293     DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2005.02.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Processes        ISSN: 0376-6357            Impact factor:   1.777


  46 in total

1.  Compromise strategies for action selection.

Authors:  Frederick L Crabbe
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2007-09-29       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  Do we expect natural selection to produce rational behaviour?

Authors:  Alasdair I Houston; John M McNamara; Mark D Steer
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2007-09-29       Impact factor: 6.237

3.  Simple learning rules to cope with changing environments.

Authors:  Roderich Gross; Alasdair I Houston; Edmund J Collins; John M McNamara; François-Xavier Dechaume-Moncharmont; Nigel R Franks
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2008-10-06       Impact factor: 4.118

4.  Ants learn to rely on more informative attributes during decision-making.

Authors:  Takao Sasaki; Stephen C Pratt
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2013-11-06       Impact factor: 3.703

Review 5.  Decision-making cognition in neurodegenerative diseases.

Authors:  Ezequiel Gleichgerrcht; Agustín Ibáñez; María Roca; Teresa Torralva; Facundo Manes
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2010-10-12       Impact factor: 42.937

6.  Managing the pandemic of obesity: siding with the fox or the hedgehog?

Authors:  Michael Myslobodsky; Loring J Ingraham
Journal:  Obes Facts       Date:  2009-12-18       Impact factor: 3.942

7.  Rationality in collective decision-making by ant colonies.

Authors:  Susan C Edwards; Stephen C Pratt
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2009-07-22       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  Human cognition in context: on the biologic, cognitive and social reconsideration of meaning as making sense of action.

Authors:  Diego Cosmelli; Agustín Ibáñez
Journal:  Integr Psychol Behav Sci       Date:  2008-05-09

9.  Emotion in animal contests.

Authors:  Andrew Crump; Emily J Bethell; Ryan Earley; Victoria E Lee; Michael Mendl; Lucy Oldham; Simon P Turner; Gareth Arnott
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2020-11-18       Impact factor: 5.349

10.  Perception of food amounts by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): the role of magnitude, contiguity, and wholeness.

Authors:  Michael J Beran; Theodore A Evans; Chasity L Ratliff
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  2009-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.