Literature DB >> 21126183

Heuristic decision making.

Gerd Gigerenzer1, Wolfgang Gaissmaier.   

Abstract

As reflected in the amount of controversy, few areas in psychology have undergone such dramatic conceptual changes in the past decade as the emerging science of heuristics. Heuristics are efficient cognitive processes, conscious or unconscious, that ignore part of the information. Because using heuristics saves effort, the classical view has been that heuristic decisions imply greater errors than do "rational" decisions as defined by logic or statistical models. However, for many decisions, the assumptions of rational models are not met, and it is an empirical rather than an a priori issue how well cognitive heuristics function in an uncertain world. To answer both the descriptive question ("Which heuristics do people use in which situations?") and the prescriptive question ("When should people rely on a given heuristic rather than a complex strategy to make better judgments?"), formal models are indispensable. We review research that tests formal models of heuristic inference, including in business organizations, health care, and legal institutions. This research indicates that (a) individuals and organizations often rely on simple heuristics in an adaptive way, and (b) ignoring part of the information can lead to more accurate judgments than weighting and adding all information, for instance for low predictability and small samples. The big future challenge is to develop a systematic theory of the building blocks of heuristics as well as the core capacities and environmental structures these exploit.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21126183     DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol        ISSN: 0066-4308            Impact factor:   24.137


  232 in total

1.  Reason's Enemy Is Not Emotion: Engagement of Cognitive Control Networks Explains Biases in Gain/Loss Framing.

Authors:  Rosa Li; David V Smith; John A Clithero; Vinod Venkatraman; R McKell Carter; Scott A Huettel
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2017-03-06       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  Perceptions of risk may explain the discrepancy between patient and clinician-recorded symptoms.

Authors:  Ian Dawson; Victoria Senior; Simon de Lusignan
Journal:  Prim Care Respir J       Date:  2012-06

3.  Heuristic and analytic processing in online sports betting.

Authors:  Alain d'Astous; Marc Di Gaspero
Journal:  J Gambl Stud       Date:  2015-06

Review 4.  Application of decision-making theory to the regulation of muscular work rate during self-paced competitive endurance activity.

Authors:  Andrew Renfree; Louise Martin; Dominic Micklewright; Alan St Clair Gibson
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 11.136

5.  Multitasking as a choice: a perspective.

Authors:  Laura Broeker; Roman Liepelt; Edita Poljac; Stefan Künzell; Harald Ewolds; Rita F de Oliveira; Markus Raab
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2017-10-30

6.  Vouchers versus Lotteries: What works best in promoting Chlamydia screening? A cluster randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Claudia Niza; Caroline Rudisill; Paul Dolan
Journal:  Appl Econ Perspect Policy       Date:  2014-03-01       Impact factor: 4.083

Review 7.  Patients' intuitive judgments about surveillance endoscopy in Barrett's esophagus: a review and application to models of decision-making.

Authors:  M Hinojosa-Lindsey; J Arney; S Heberlig; J R Kramer; R L Street; H B El-Serag; A D Naik
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 3.429

8.  A psychological approach to learning causal networks.

Authors:  Manaf Zargoush; Farrokh Alemi; Vinzenzo Esposito Vinzi; Jee Vang; Raya Kheirbek
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2013-09-19

Review 9.  Do humans make good decisions?

Authors:  Christopher Summerfield; Konstantinos Tsetsos
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2014-12-06       Impact factor: 20.229

10.  Task-specific modulation of adult humans' tool preferences: number of choices and size of the problem.

Authors:  Kathleen M Silva; Thomas J Gross; Francisco J Silva
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.986

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.