IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v4y2009i2p175-185_9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Coherence and correspondence in the psychological analysis of numerical predictions: How error-prone heuristics are replaced by ecologically valid heuristics

Author

Listed:
  • Ganzach, Yoav

Abstract

Numerical predictions are of central interest for both coherence-based approaches to judgment and decisions — the Heuristic and Biases (HB) program in particular — and to correspondence-based approaches — Social Judgment Theory (SJT). In this paper I examine the way these two approaches study numerical predictions by reviewing papers that use Cue Probability Learning (CPL), the central experimental paradigm for studying numerical predictions in the SJT tradition, while attempting to look for heuristics and biases. The theme underlying this review is that both bias-prone heuristics and adaptive heuristics govern subjects’ predictions in CPL. When they have little experience to guide them, subjects fall prey to relying on bias-prone natural heuristics, such as representativeness and anchoring and adjustment, which are the only prediction strategies available to them. But, as they acquire experience with the prediction task, these heuristics are abandoned and replaced by ecologically valid heuristics.

Suggested Citation

  • Ganzach, Yoav, 2009. "Coherence and correspondence in the psychological analysis of numerical predictions: How error-prone heuristics are replaced by ecologically valid heuristics," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 175-185, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:2:p:175-185_9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500002618/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:4:y:2009:i:2:p:175-185_9. 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.