IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v12y2017i5p491-506_6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring the relative contributions of rule-based and exemplar-based processes in judgment: Validation of a simple model

Author

Listed:
  • Bröder, Arndt
  • Gräf, Michael
  • Kieslich, Pascal J.

Abstract

Judgments and decisions can rely on rules to integrate cue information or on the retrieval of similar exemplars from memory. Research on exemplar-based processes in judgment has discovered several task variables influencing the dominant mode of processing. This research often aggregates data across participants or classifies them as using either exemplar-based or cue-based processing. It has been argued for theoretical and empirical reasons that both kinds of processes might operate together or in parallel. Hence, a classification of strategies may be a severe oversimplification that also sacrifices statistical power to detect task effects. We present a simple measurement tool combining both processing modes. The simple model contains a mixture parameter quantifying the relative contribution of both kinds of processes in a judgment and decision task. In three experiments, we validate the measurement model by demonstrating that instructions and task variables affect the mixture parameter in predictable ways, both in memory-based and screen-based judgments.

Suggested Citation

  • Bröder, Arndt & Gräf, Michael & Kieslich, Pascal J., 2017. "Measuring the relative contributions of rule-based and exemplar-based processes in judgment: Validation of a simple model," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(5), pages 491-506, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:5:p:491-506_6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500006513/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:5:p:491-506_6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.