Literature DB >> 21480741

Rational learning and information sampling: on the "naivety" assumption in sampling explanations of judgment biases.

Gaël Le Mens1, Jerker Denrell.   

Abstract

Recent research has argued that several well-known judgment biases may be due to biases in the available information sample rather than to biased information processing. Most of these sample-based explanations assume that decision makers are "naive": They are not aware of the biases in the available information sample and do not correct for them. Here, we show that this "naivety" assumption is not necessary. Systematically biased judgments can emerge even when decision makers process available information perfectly and are also aware of how the information sample has been generated. Specifically, we develop a rational analysis of Denrell's (2005) experience sampling model, and we prove that when information search is interested rather than disinterested, even rational information sampling and processing can give rise to systematic patterns of errors in judgments. Our results illustrate that a tendency to favor alternatives for which outcome information is more accessible can be consistent with rational behavior. The model offers a rational explanation for behaviors that had previously been attributed to cognitive and motivational biases, such as the in-group bias or the tendency to prefer popular alternatives. 2011 APA, all rights reserved

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21480741     DOI: 10.1037/a0023010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Rev        ISSN: 0033-295X            Impact factor:   8.934


  6 in total

Review 1.  Asking the right questions about the psychology of human inquiry: Nine open challenges.

Authors:  Anna Coenen; Jonathan D Nelson; Todd M Gureckis
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2019-10

2.  Building Bridges between Perceptual and Economic Decision-Making: Neural and Computational Mechanisms.

Authors:  Christopher Summerfield; Konstantinos Tsetsos
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2012-05-24       Impact factor: 4.677

3.  Cognitive Constraints on Decision Making under Uncertainty.

Authors:  Christian Lebiere; John R Anderson
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2011-11-15

4.  Group decisions based on confidence weighted majority voting.

Authors:  Sascha Meyen; Dorothee M B Sigg; Ulrike von Luxburg; Volker H Franz
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2021-03-15

5.  A Description-Experience Framework of the Psychology of Risk.

Authors:  Ralph Hertwig; Dirk U Wulff
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2021-12-07

6.  Why contextual preference reversals maximize expected value.

Authors:  Andrew Howes; Paul A Warren; George Farmer; Wael El-Deredy; Richard L Lewis
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 8.934

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.