IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Precise models deserve precise measures: A methodological dissection

Listed author(s):
  • Benjamin E. Hilbig
Registered author(s):

    The recognition heuristic (RH) --- which predicts non-compensatory reliance on recognition in comparative judgments --- has attracted much research and some disagreement, at times. Most studies have dealt with whether or under which conditions the RH is truly used in paired-comparisons. However, even though the RH is a precise descriptive model, there has been less attention concerning the precision of the methods applied to measure RH-use. In the current work, I provide an overview of different measures of RH-use tailored to the paradigm of natural recognition which has emerged as a preferred way of studying the RH. The measures are compared with respect to different criteria --- with particular emphasis on how well they uncover true use of the RH. To this end, both simulations and a re-analysis of empirical data are presented. The results indicate that the adherence rate --- which has been pervasively applied to measure RH-use --- is a severely biased measure. As an alternative, a recently developed formal measurement model emerges as the recommended candidate for assessment of RH-use.

    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:
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

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

    Volume (Year): 5 (2010)
    Issue (Month): 4 (July)
    Pages: 272-284

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:jdm:journl:v:5:y:2010:i:4:p:272-284
    Contact details of provider:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

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

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jdm:journl:v:5:y:2010:i:4:p:272-284. 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.