Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

How to study cognitive decision algorithms: The case of the priority heuristic

Contents:

Author Info

  • Klaus Fiedler
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Although the priority heuristic (PH) is conceived as a cognitive-process model, some of its critical process assumptions remain to be tested. The PH makes very strong ordinal and quantitative assumptions about the strictly sequential, non-compensatory use of three cues in choices between lotteries: (1) the difference between worst outcomes, (2) the difference in worst-case probabilities, and (3) the best outcome that can be obtained. These aspects were manipulated orthogonally in the present experiment. No support was found for the PH. Although the main effect of the primary worst-outcome manipulation was significant, it came along with other effects that the PH excludes. A strong effect of the secondary manipulation of worst-outcome probabilities was not confined to small differences in worst-outcomes; it was actually stronger for large worst-outcome differences. Overall winning probabilities that the PH ignores exerted a systematic influence. The overall rate of choices correctly predicted by the PH was close to chance, although high inter-judge agreement reflected systematic responding. These findings raise fundamental questions about the theoretical status of heuristics as fixed modules.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://journal.sjdm.org/10/91006/jdm91006.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://journal.sjdm.org/10/91006/jdm91006.html
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Society for Judgment and Decision Making in its journal Judgment and Decision Making.

    Volume (Year): 5 (2010)
    Issue (Month): 1 (February)
    Pages: 21-32

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:jdm:journl:v:5:y:2010:i:1:p:21-32

    Contact details of provider:

    Related research

    Keywords: lotteries; non-compensatory heuristics; aspiration level; risky choice.;

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Rosenthal,Robert, 1987. "Judgment Studies," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521331913, December.
    2. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. " Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Michael H. Birnbaum & Jeffrey P. Bahra, 2012. "Separating response variability from structural inconsistency to test models of risky decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(4), pages 402-426, July.
    2. Rudiger F. Pohl, 2011. "On the use of recognition in inferential decision making: An overview of the debate," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(5), pages 423-438, July.
    3. Andreas Glockner & Benjamin E. Hilbig, 2011. "Editorial: Methodology in judgment and decision making research," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 705-710, December.
    4. Konstantinos V. Katsikopoulos & Cherng-Horng (Dan) Lan, 2011. "Herbert Simon’s spell on judgment and decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 722-732, December.
    5. Clintin P. Davis-Stober & Nicholas Brown, 2011. "A shift in strategy or "error"? Strategy classification over multiple stochastic specifications," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 800-813, December.
    6. Marc Jekel & Susann Fiedler & Andreas Glockner, 2011. "Diagnostic task selection for strategy classification in judgment and decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 782-799, December.
    7. Andreas Glockner & Tilmann Betsch, 2011. "The Empirical content of theories in judgment and decision making: Shortcomings and remedies," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 711-721, December.
    8. Morten Moshagen & Benjamin E. Hilbig, 2011. "Methodological notes on model comparisons and strategy classification: A falsificationist proposition," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 814-820, December.
    9. Michael H. Birnbaum & Jeffrey P. Bahra, 2012. "Testing transitivity of preferences using linked designs," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(5), pages 524-567, September.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jdm:journl:v:5:y:2010:i:1:p:21-32. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jonathan Baron).

    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.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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