Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-r8w4l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-09T16:38:41.573Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Taking the Interface between Mind and Environment Seriously

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2010

By
Klaus Fiedler  and
Peter Juslin
Edited by
Klaus Fiedler  and
Peter Juslin
Klaus Fiedler
Affiliation:
Professor of Psychology, University of Heidelberg in Germany
Peter Juslin
Affiliation:
Professor of Psychology, University of Uppsala, Sweden
Klaus Fiedler
Affiliation:
Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Germany
Peter Juslin
Affiliation:
Umeå Universitet, Sweden
Get access

Summary

Metaphors mold science. Research on judgment and decision making (JDM) – for which psychologists and economists have gained Nobel prizes (Kahneman, Slovic & Tversky, 1982; Simon, 1956, 1990) and elevated political and public reputations (Swets, Dawes & Monahan, 2000) – is routinely characterized as having proceeded in several waves, each carried by its own metaphor. A first wave of JDM research in the 1960s compared people's behavior to normative models, a common conclusion being that, with some significant exceptions, human judgment is well approximated by normative models (Peterson & Beach, 1967): The mind was likened to an “intuitive statistician” (a metaphor borrowed from Egon Brunswik).

A second and more influential wave of JDM research, initiated by Tversky and Kahneman, emphasized the shortcomings, biases, and errors of human judgments and decisions (Kahneman et al., 1982). Because of the mind's constrained capacity to process information, people can only achieve bounded rationality (Simon, 1990), and – as inspired by research on problem solving (Newell & Simon, 1972) – they have to rely on cognitive heuristics. In contrast to problem-solving research, however, the focus was on heuristics leading to bias and error in judgment. The metaphor of an intuitive statistician was soon replaced by the notion that the mind operates according to principles other than those prescribed by decision theory, probability theory, and statistics. In the fond lurks Homo economicus, a rational optimizer with gargantuan appetite for knowledge, time, and computation defining the norm for rational behavior.

Type
Chapter
Information
Information Sampling and Adaptive Cognition , pp. 3 - 30
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, J. K., & Adams, P. A. (1961). Realism of confidence judgments. Psychological Review, 68, 33–45CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Betsch, T., Haberstroh, S., Glöckner, A., Haar, T., & Fiedler, K. (2001). The effects of routine strength on adaptation and information search in recurrent decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84, 23–53CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brehmer, B. (1980). In one word: Not from experience. Acta Psychologica, 45, 223–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. Berkeley: University of California PressGoogle Scholar
Chater, N. (1996). Reconciling simplicity and likelihood principles in perceptual organization. Psychological Review, 103, 566–581CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1978). Confidence in judgment: Persistence of the illusion of validity. Psychological Review, 85, 395–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erev, I., Wallsten, T. S., & Budescu, D. V. (1994). Simultaneous over- and underconfidence: The role of error in judgment processes. Psychological Review, 101, 519–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, K. (1996). Explaining and simulating judgment biases as an aggregation phenomenon in probabilistic, multiple-cue environments. Psychological Review, 103, 193–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, K. (2000). Beware of samples! A cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases. Psychological Review, 107, 659–676CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiedler, K., & Armbruster, T. (1994). Two halfs may be more than one whole: Category-split effects on frequency illusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 633–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, K., Brinkmann, B., Betsch, T., & Wild, B. (2000). A sampling approach to biases in conditional probability judgments: Beyond baserate neglect and statistical format. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 399–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, K., & Freytag, P. (2004). Pseudocontingencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 453–467CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiedler, K., Schmid, J. & Stahl, T. (2002). What is the current truth about polygraph lie detection?Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 331–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, K., & Walther, E. (2004). Stereotyping as social hypothesis testing. New York: Psychology PressGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, K., Walther, E., Freytag, P., & Plessner, H. (2002). Judgment biases in a simulated classroom – a cognitive-environmental approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 527–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117, 39–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton MifflinGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (1991). From tools to theories: A heuristic of discovery in cognitive psychology. Psychological Review, 98, 254–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., & Fiedler, F. (2005). Minds in environments: The potential of an ecological approach to cognition. Manuscript submitted for publicationGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instructions: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102, 684–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Hoffrage, U., & Kleinbölting, H. (1991). Probabilistic mental models: A Brunswikian theory of confidence. Psychological Review, 98, 506–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P., & the ABC Group (1999) (Eds.). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, D. L., & Gifford, R. K. (1976). Illusory correlation in interpersonal perception: A cognitive basis of stereotypic judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 392–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogarth, R. M., & Einhorn, H. J. (1992). Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubert, M. (1999). The misuse of past-performance data. In Likson, L. E. & Geist, R. A. (Eds.), The psychology of investing (pp. 147–157). New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (1988). Out-group-homogeneity: Judgments of variability at the individual and the group levels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 778–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juslin, P. (1994). The overconfidence phenomenon as a consequence of informal experimenter-guided selection of almanac items. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57, 226–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juslin, P., & Olsson, H. (1997). Thurstonian and Brunswikian origins of uncertainty in judgment: A sampling model of confidence in sensory Discrimination. Psychological Review, 104, 344–366CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Juslin, P., & Olsson, H. (2005). Capacity limitations and the detection of correlations: Comment on Kareev (2000). Psychological Review, 112, 256–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juslin, P., Winman, A., & Olssen, H. (2000). Naive empiricism and dogmatism in confidence research: A critical examination of the hard-easy effect. Psychological Review, 107, 384–396CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93, 136–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.) (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kareev, Y. (2000). Seven (indeed, plus minus two) and the detection of correlations. Psychological Review, 107, 397–402CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kashima, Y., Woolcock, J., & Kashima, E. S. (2000). Group impressions as dynamic configurations: The tensor product model of goup impression formation and change. Psychological Review, 107, 914–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klauer, K. C., Musch, J., & Naumer, B. (2000). On belief bias in syllogistic reasoning. Psychological Review, 107, 852–884CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klayman, J., & Ha, Y. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94, 211–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one's own knowledge during study: A cue utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 349–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koriat, A., Fiedler, K., & Bjork, R. A. (2005). The inflation of conditional predictions. Manuscript submitted for publicationGoogle Scholar
Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. (1937). The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 2, 151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & RowGoogle Scholar
Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1977). Do those who know more also know more about how much they know? The calibration of probability judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20, 159–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., & Phillips, L. D. (1982). Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 306–334). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, L. L. (1992). Beyond accessibility: The role of processing objectives in judgment. In Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. (Eds.), Construction of social judgment (pp. 217–245). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Musch, J., & Klauer, K. C. (Eds.) (2002). The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and evaluation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1994). A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review, 101, 608–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1998). Rationality in an uncertain world: Essays on the cognitive science of human reasoning. Hove, England: Psychology Press/Erlbaum (UK) Taylor & FrancisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oskamp, S. (1965). Overconfidence in case-study judgments. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29, 261–265CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patrick, C. J., & Iacono, W. G. (1991). Validity of the control question polygraph test: The problem of sampling bias. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 76, 229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, C. R., & Beach, L. R. (1967). Man as an intuitive statistician. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 29–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roe, R. M., Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (2001). Multi-alternative decision field theory: A dynamic connectionist model of decision making. Psychological Review, 108, 370–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rulon, P. J. (1941). Problems of regression. Harvard Educational Review, 11, 213–223Google Scholar
Semin, G. R., Rubini, M., & Fiedler, K. (1995). The answer is in the question: The effect of verb causality on locus of explanation. Personality and Social psychology Bulletin, 21, 834–841Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of environments. Psychological Review, 63, 129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 1–19CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smolensky, P. (1988). On the proper treatment of connectionism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 1–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, M. (1984). When belief creates reality. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 247–305). New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stelzl, I. (1982). Fehler und Fallen der Statistik [Errors and traps in statistics] Bern: HuberGoogle Scholar
Swann, W. B., Giuliano, T., & Wegner, D. M. (1982). Where leading questions can lead: The power of conjecture in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1025–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swets, J., Dawes, R. M., & Monahan, J. (2000). Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1, Whole No. 1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 273–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 207–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., & Koehler, D. J. (1994). Support theory: A nonextensional representation of subjective probability. Psychological Review, 101, 547–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., & Simonson, I. (1991). Context dependent preferences. Management Science, 39, 1179–1189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helm, P. A., & Leeuwenberg, E. L. J. (1996). Goodness of visual regularities: A nontransformational approach. Psychological Review, 103, 429–456CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wänke, M., Schwarz, N., & Noelle-Neumann, E. (1995). Question wording in comparative judgments: Understanding and manipulating the dynamics of the direction of comparison. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59, 347–372Google Scholar
Weber, E., Shafir, S., & Blais, A.-R. (2004). Predicting risk-sensitivity in humans and lower animals: Risk as variance or coefficient or variation. Psychological Review, 111, 430–445CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wells, G. L., & Windschitl, P. D. (1999). Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1115–1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckerman, M., Koestner, R., Colella, M. J., & Alton, A. O. (1984). Anchoring in the detection of deception and leakage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 301–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×