IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/78162.html

Psychology into economics: fast and frugal heuristics

Author

Listed:
  • Schilirò, Daniele

Abstract

The present essay focuses on the fast and frugal heuristics program set forth by Gerd Gigerenzer and his fellows. In particular it examines the contribution of Gigerenzer and Goldstein (1996) ‘Reasoning the Fast and Frugal Way: Models of Bounded Rationality’. This essay, following the theoretical propositions and the empirical evidence of Gigerenzer and Goldstein, points out that simple cognitive mechanisms such as fast and frugal heuristics can be capable of successful performance in real world, without the need of satisfying the classical norms of rational inference.

Suggested Citation

  • Schilirò, Daniele, 2015. "Psychology into economics: fast and frugal heuristics," MPRA Paper 78162, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:78162
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/78162/3/MPRA_paper_78162.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniele Schilirò, 2012. "Bounded Rationality And Perfect Rationality: Psychology Into Economics," Theoretical and Practical Research in the Economic Fields, ASERS Publishing, vol. 3(2), pages 99-108.
    2. Juslin, Peter, 1994. "The Overconfidence Phenomenon as a Consequence of Informal Experimenter-Guided Selection of Almanac Items," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 226-246, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Friedel Bolle & Jessica Kaehler, 2006. "Coleman's Hypothesis on trusting behaviour and a remark on meta-studies," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 469-483.
    2. Brenner, Lyle & Griffin, Dale & Koehler, Derek J., 2005. "Modeling patterns of probability calibration with random support theory: Diagnosing case-based judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 64-81, May.
    3. David V. Budescu & Timothy R. Johnson, 2011. "A model-based approach for the analysis of the calibration of probability judgments," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 857-869, December.
    4. Markus Glaser & Thomas Langer & Martin Weber, 2007. "On the Trend Recognition and Forecasting Ability of Professional Traders," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 176-193, December.
    5. Dubard Barbosa, Saulo & Fayolle, Alain & Smith, Brett R., 2019. "Biased and overconfident, unbiased but going for it: How framing and anchoring affect the decision to start a new venture," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 528-557.
    6. Daniele SCHILIRÒ, 2013. "Bounded Rationality: Psychology, Economics And The Financial Crises," Theoretical and Practical Research in the Economic Fields, ASERS Publishing, vol. 4(1), pages 97-108.
    7. Dennis Dittrich & Werner Guth & Boris Maciejovsky, 2005. "Overconfidence in investment decisions: An experimental approach," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(6), pages 471-491.
    8. Grieco, Daniela & Hogarth, Robin M., 2009. "Overconfidence in absolute and relative performance: The regression hypothesis and Bayesian updating," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 756-771, October.
    9. Juslin, Peter & Olsson, Henrik & Winman, Anders, 1998. "The Calibration Issue: Theoretical Comments on Suantak, Bolger, and Ferrell (1996)," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 3-26, January.
    10. David V. Budescu & Ning Du, 2007. "Coherence and Consistency of Investors' Probability Judgments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(11), pages 1731-1744, November.
    11. Robin Hogarth, 2003. "Is confidence in decisions related to feedback? Evidence-and lack of evidence-from random samples of real-world managerial behavior?," Economics Working Papers 655, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Apr 2004.
    12. Daniele Schilirò, 2018. "Economic Decisions and Simon’s Notion of Bounded Rationality," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(7), pages 64-75, July.
    13. Bender, Randall H., 1998. "Judgment and Response Processes across Two Knowledge Domains," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 222-257, September.
    14. Klayman, Joshua & Soll, Jack B. & Gonzalez-Vallejo, Claudia & Barlas, Sema, 1999. "Overconfidence: It Depends on How, What, and Whom You Ask, , , , , , , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 216-247, September.
    15. McKenzie, Craig R. M., 1997. "Underweighting Alternatives and Overconfidence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 141-160, August.
    16. Brenner, Lyle A., 2003. "A random support model of the calibration of subjective probabilities," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 87-110, January.
    17. Price, Paul C., 1998. "Effects of a Relative-Frequency Elicitation Question on Likelihood Judgment Accuracy: The Case of External Correspondence, , , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 277-297, December.
    18. Mary Kynn, 2008. "The ‘heuristics and biases’ bias in expert elicitation," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 171(1), pages 239-264, January.
    19. Schilirò, Daniele, 2017. "Economics versus psychology.Risk, uncertainty and the expected utility theory," MPRA Paper 83366, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Kovalchik, Stephanie & Camerer, Colin F. & Grether, David M. & Plott, Charles R. & Allman, John M., 2005. "Aging and decision making: a comparison between neurologically healthy elderly and young individuals," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 79-94, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D0 - Microeconomics - - General
    • D10 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - General
    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General

    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:pra:mprapa:78162. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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.