Skip to main content

The Use of Heuristics in Decision Making Under Risk and Uncertainty

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Psychological Perspectives on Risk and Risk Analysis

Abstract

When making decisions under risk and uncertainty, people often rely on heuristics. A heuristic is a simple decision rule that allows one to make judgments without integrating all the information available. Especially in complex situations and under time pressure, simplification supports humans in coping with their limited capacity to process information. In this chapter, we introduce two main approaches: the heuristics and biases program (including the availability, representativeness, affect, as well as anchoring and adjustment heuristics) and the fast and frugal heuristics. Sometimes, the use of heuristics can lead people astray and result in errors, which is the focus of the heuristics and biases program. But in many other instances, heuristics support effective decision making in complex situations and lead to sufficient outcomes, which is the focus of the fast and frugal heuristics approach. We discuss the underlying processes, criticisms, and limitations of both approaches. We also consider practical implications of heuristics using the perception of climate changeĀ as an example and introduce applications in the form of nudges and decision trees.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Kahneman and Frederick (2002) suggested that the anchoring heuristic needs to be replaced by the affect heuristic in the list of ā€œmajor general-purpose heuristicsā€ (p. 6).

References

  • Agnoli, F. (1991). Development of judgmental heuristics and logical reasoning: Training counteracts the representativeness heuristic. Cognitive Development, 6(2), 195ā€“217.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Agnoli, F., & Krantz, D. H. (1989). Suppressing natural heuristics by formal instruction: The case of the conjunction fallacy. Cognitive Psychology, 21(4), 515ā€“550.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Artinger, F. M., Bortoleto, A. P., & Katsikopoulos, K. V. (2016). Environmental behavior and fast and frugal heuristics. In F. Beckenbach & W. Kahlenborn (Eds.), New perspectives for environmental policies through behavioral economics (pp. 195ā€“211). Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16793-0_8

    ChapterĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Ayres, I., Raseman, S., & Shih, A. (2012). Evidence from two large field experiments that peer comparison feedback can reduce residential energy usage. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 29(5), 992ā€“1022. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ews020

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Benartzi, S., Beshears, J., Milkman, K. L., Sunstein, C. R., Thaler, R. H., Shankar, M., et al. (2017). Should governments invest more in nudging? Psychological Science, 28(8), 1041ā€“1055. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617702501

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  PubMed CentralĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Benartzi, S., & Thaler, R. H. (2001). Naive diversification strategies in defined contribution saving plans. The American Economic Review, 91(1), 79ā€“98. https://doi.org/10.2307/2677899

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Benartzi, S., & Thaler, R. H. (2013). Behavioral economics and the retirement savings crisis. Science, 339, 1152ā€“1153.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Brewer, N. T., Chapman, G. B., Schwartz, J. A., & Bergus, G. R. (2007). The influence of irrelevant anchors on the judgments and choices of doctors and patients. Medical Decision Making, 27(2), 203ā€“211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X06298595

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • BruchmĆ¼ller, K., Margraf, J., & Schneider, S. (2012). Is ADHD diagnosed in accord with diagnostic criteria? Overdiagnosis and influence of client gender on diagnosis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 80(1), 128ā€“138. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026582

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (2002). Incorporating the irrelevant: Anchors in judgments of belief and value. In T. Gilovich, D. W. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 120ā€“138). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    ChapterĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Chapman University. (2016). Americaā€™s top fears 2016. Retrieved August 3, 2017, from https://blogs.chapman.edu/wilkinson/2016/10/11/americas-top-fears-2016/

  • Chen, G., Kim, K. A., Nofsinger, J. R., & Rui, O. M. (2007). Trading performance, disposition effect, overconfidence, representativeness bias, and experience of emerging market investors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20(4), 425ā€“451. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.561

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Cosmides, L. (1996). Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty. Cognition, 58(1), 1ā€“73. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(95)00664-8

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Critcher, C. R., & Gilovich, T. (2008). Incidental environmental anchors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21(3), 241ā€“251.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Dana, J., & Davis-Stober, C. P. (2016). Rational foundations of fast and frugal heuristics: The ecological rationality of strategy selection via improper linear models. Minds and Machines, 26(1ā€“2), 61ā€“86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-015-9372-z

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • DeMiguel, V., Garlappi, L., & Uppal, R. (2009). Optimal versus naive diversification: How inefficient is the 1/N portfolio strategy? The Review of Financial Studies, 22(5), 1915ā€“1953. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhm075

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Druckman, J. N. (2015). Eliminating the local warming effect. Nature Climate Change, 5(3), 176ā€“177. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2536

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 380ā€“417. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0053870

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Englich, B., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). Sentencing under uncertainty: Anchoring effects in the courtroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(7), 1535ā€“1551. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02687.x

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2005). The last word in courtā€”A hidden disadvantage for the defense. Law and Human Behavior, 29(6), 705ā€“722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-8380-7

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2006). Playing dice with criminal sentences: The influence of irrelevant anchors on expertsā€™ judicial decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 188ā€“200.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2006). The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: Why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychological Science, 17(4), 311ā€“318.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Faraji-Rad, A., & Pham, M. T. (2016). Uncertainty increases the reliance on affect in decisions. Journal of Consumer Research., 44(1), 1ā€“21. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2715333

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Fiedler, K., & von Sydow, M. (2015). Heuristics and biases: Beyond Tversky and Kahnemanā€™s (1974) judgment under uncertainty. In M. W. Eysenck & D. Groome (Eds.), Cognitive psychology revisiting the classic studies (pp. 146ā€“161). London: SAGE.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1ā€“17.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Galinsky, A. D., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 657ā€“669. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.657

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66(4), 290ā€“302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023566

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Gifford, R., & Comeau, L. A. (2011). Message framing influences perceived climate change competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions. Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1301ā€“1307.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Gigerenzer, G. (1991). How to make cognitive illusions disappear: Beyond ā€œheuristics and biasesā€. European Review of Social Psychology, 2(1), 83ā€“115.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Gigerenzer, G. (2015). On the supposed evidence for libertarian paternalism. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6(3), 361ā€“383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-015-0248-1

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  PubMed CentralĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Gigerenzer, G. (2016). Introduction: Taking heuristics seriously. In A. Samson (Ed.), The behavioral economics guide (pp. Vā€“XI). London: Behavioral Science Solutions.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103(4), 650ā€“669. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.650

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Gigerenzer, G., Hell, W., & Blank, H. (1988). Presentation and content: The use of base rates as a continuous variable. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14(3), 513ā€“525. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.14.3.513

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102(4), 684.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Gigerenzer, G., & Murray, D. J. (2015). Cognition as intuitive statistics. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

    BookĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & The ABC Research Group. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Glƶckner, A. (2008). Does intuition beat fast and frugal heuristics? In H. Plessner, C. Betsch, & T. Betsch (Eds.), Intuition in judgment and decision making (pp. 309ā€“326). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic. Psychological Review, 109(1), 75ā€“90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.1.75

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Gould, S. J. (1992). Bully for brontosaurus: Reflections in natural history. New York, NY: Norton.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Green, L., & Mehr, D. R. (1997). What alters physiciansā€™ decisions to admit to the coronary care unit? Journal of Family Practice, 45(3), 219ā€“226.

    PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Greifeneder, R., & Bless, H. (2007). Relying on accessible content versus accessibility experiences: The case of processing capacity. Social Cognition, 25(6), 853ā€“881. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2007.25.6.853

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Greifeneder, R., Bless, H., & Pham, M. T. (2010). When do people rely on affective and cognitive feelings in judgment? A review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(2), 107ā€“141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310367640

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.) Syntax and semantics, (3), 41ā€“58. New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • GrĆ¼ne-Yanoff, T., & Hertwig, R. (2015). Nudge versus boost: How coherent are policy and theory? Minds and Machines, 26(1ā€“2), 149ā€“183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-015-9367-9

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Haegeli, P., Haider, W., Longland, M., & Beardmore, B. (2009). Amateur decision-making in avalanche terrain with and without a decision aid: A stated choice survey. Natural Hazards, 52(1), 185ā€“209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-009-9365-4

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • HafenbrƤdl, S., Waeger, D., & Marewski, J. N. (2016). Applied decision making with fast-and-frugal heuristics. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5(2), 215ā€“231.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Hart, S. (2005). Adaptive heuristics. Econometrica, 73(5), 1401ā€“1430.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Hertwig, R., & GrĆ¼ne-Yanoff, T. (2017). Nudging and boosting: Steering or empowering good decisions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 1ā€“14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617702496

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Hilbig, B. E., Scholl, S. G., & Pohl, R. F. (2010). Think or blinkā€”Is the recognition heuristic an ā€œintuitiveā€ strategy? Judgment and Decision making, 5(4), 300ā€“309.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Hirshleifer, D., & Shumway, T. (2003). Good day sunshine: Stock returns and the weather. The Journal of Finance, 58(3), 1009ā€“1032. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6261.00556

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Holtgraves, T., & Skeel, J. (1992). Cognitive biases in playing the lottery: Estimating the odds and choosing the numbers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(12), 934ā€“952. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00935.x

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Jenny, M. A., Pachur, T., Williams, S. L., Becker, E., & Margraf, J. (2013). Simple rules for detecting depression. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(3), 149ā€“157.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Johnson, E. J., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Do defaults save lives? Science, 302(5649), 1338ā€“1339. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091721

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2(10), 732ā€“735. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Kahneman, D. (2000). A psychological point of view: Violations of rational rules as a diagnostic of mental processes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 681ā€“683.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Kahneman, D. (2016). Heuristics and biases. In R. J. Sternberg, S. T. Fiske, & D. J. Foss (Eds.), Scientists making a difference (pp. 171ā€“174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316422250

    ChapterĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. W. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49ā€“81). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    ChapterĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 430ā€“454. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80(4), 237ā€“251. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034747

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). On the study of statistical intuitions. Cognition, 11(2), 123ā€“141.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., et al. (1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177ā€“187.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Keller, C., Siegrist, M., & Gutscher, H. (2006). The role of the affect and availability heuristics in risk communication. Risk Analysis, 26(3), 631ā€“639. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00773.x/full

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Kelman, M. (2011). The heuristics debate. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    BookĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. New York, NY: Hart.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Leave No Trace. (2016). Using the thumb trick: Keep a safe distance from wildlife. Retrieved August 17, 2017, from https://lnt.org/blog/using-thumb-trick-keep-safe-distance-wildlife

  • Lerner, J. S., Gonzalez, R. M., Small, D. A., & Fischhoff, B. (2003). Effects of fear and anger on perceived risks of terrorism: A national field experiment. Psychological Science, 14, 144ā€“150. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.01433

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Li, Y., Johnson, E. J., & Zaval, L. (2011). Local warming: Daily temperature change influences belief in global warming. Psychological Science, 22(4), 454ā€“459. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611400913

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Layman, M., & Combs, B. (1978). Judged frequency of lethal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4(6), 551ā€“578.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267ā€“286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Luce, R. D., & Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Marewski, J. N., & Gigerenzer, G. (2012). Heuristic decision making in medicine. Dialogues in Clinical Research, 14(1), 77ā€“89.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Marewski, J. N., & Pohl, R. F. (2010). Recognition-based judgments and decisions: Introduction to the special issue (Vol. 1). Judgment and Decision Making, 5(4), 207ā€“215.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • McCammon, I., & Haegeli, P. (2006). Evaluation of a rule-based decision aid for recreational travelers in avalanche terrain. In Proceedings of the international snow science workshop, Telluride, CO.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • McCammon, I., & HƤgeli, P. (2004). Comparing avalanche decision frameworks using accident data from the United States. In Proceedings of the international snow science workshop, Jackson, WY.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • McCammon, I., & HƤgeli, P. (2007). An evaluation of rule-based decision tools for travel in avalanche terrain. Cold Regions Science and Technology, 47(1ā€“2), 193ā€“206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2006.08.007

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • McDowell, M. E., Occhipinti, S., & Chambers, S. K. (2013). The influence of family history on cognitive heuristics, risk perceptions, and prostate cancer screening behavior. Health Psychology, 32(11), 1158ā€“1169. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031622

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Mousavi, S., & Gigerenzer, G. (2014). Risk, uncertainty, and heuristics. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1671ā€“1678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.02.013

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999). Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(2), 136ā€“164. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1364

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2000). The use of category and exemplar knowledge in the solution of anchoring tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6), 1038ā€“1052. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.6.1038

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Mussweiler, T., Strack, F., & Pfeiffer, T. (2000). Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1142ā€“1150. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672002611010

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Neth, H., & Gigerenzer, G. (2015). Heuristics: Tools for an uncertain world. In R. A. Scott & S. M. Kosslyn (Eds.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences an interdisciplinary, searchable, and linkable resource (pp. 1ā€“18). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0394

    ChapterĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1987). Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39(1), 84ā€“97.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Pachur, T., Hertwig, R., & Steinmann, F. (2012). How do people judge risks: Availability heuristic, affect heuristic, or both? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(3), 314ā€“330. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028279

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Pham, M. T. (1998). Representativeness, relevance, and the use of feelings in decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(2), 144ā€“159. https://doi.org/10.1086/209532

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Pichert, D., & Katsikopoulos, K. V. (2008). Green defaults: Information presentation and pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(1), 63ā€“73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.09.004

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Plessner, H., & Czenna, S. (2008). The benefits of intuition. In H. Plessner, C. Betsch, & T. Betsch (Eds.), Intuition in judgment and decision making (pp. 251ā€“265). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Pohl, R. F. (2011). On the use of recognition in inferential decision making: An overview of the debate. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(5), 423ā€“438.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Pohl, R. F. (2017). Cognitive illusions. In R. F. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive illusions intriguing phenomena in judgement, thinking and memory (2nd ed., pp. 3ā€“21). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Pohl, R. F., Michalkiewicz, M., Erdfelder, E., & Hilbig, B. E. (2017). Use of the recognition heuristic depends on the domainā€™s recognition validity, not on the recognition validity of selected sets of objects. Memory & Cognition, 45(5), 776ā€“791. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-017-0689-0

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Reimer, T., & Rieskamp, J. (2007). Fast and frugal heuristics. In R. Baumeister & K. D. Voss (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social psychology (pp. 347ā€“349). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Rieskamp, J., & Otto, P. E. (2011). SSL: A theory of how people learn to select strategies. In G. Gigerenzer, R. Hertwig, & T. Pachur (Eds.), Heuristics: The foundations of adaptive behavior (pp. 244ā€“266). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    ChapterĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Ross, M., & Sicoly, F. (1979). Egocentric biases in availability and attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(3), 322ā€“336.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Rothman, A. J., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Constructing perceptions of vulnerability: Personal relevance and the use of experiential information in health judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(10), 1053ā€“1064. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672982410003

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Schlag, P. (2010). Nudge, choice architecture, and libertarian paternalism. Michigan Law Review, 108(6), 913ā€“924.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Scholl, S. G., & Greifeneder, R. (2011). Disentangling the effects of alternation rate and maximum run length on judgments of randomness. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(6), 531ā€“541.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Scholl, S. G. & Bless, H. (2016). Urteilsheuristiken. In D. Frey & H.-W. Bierhoff, (Eds.). EnzyklopƤdie der Psychologie: Selbst und Soziale Kognition - Sozialpsychologie, Band 1 (pp. 387ā€“408). Gƶttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Schwarz, N. (1990). Feelings as information: Informational and motivational functions of affective states. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 527ā€“561). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Schwarz, N. (1996). Cognition and communication: Judgmental biases, research methods, and the logic of conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 195ā€“202. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.195

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of Well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 513ā€“523.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Schwarz, N., Strack, F., Hilton, D., & Naderer, G. (1991). Base rates, representativeness, and the logic of conversation: The contextual relevance of ā€œirrelevantā€ information. Social Cognition, 9(1), 67ā€“84. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1991.9.1.67

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Sedikides, C. (1995). Central and peripheral self-conceptions are differentially influenced by mood: Tests of the differential sensitivity hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 759ā€“777. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.759

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Shefrin, H. (2013, September 1). Assessing the contribution of hyman minskyā€™s perspective to our understanding of economic instability. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2311045

  • Siegrist, M., & SĆ¼tterlin, B. (2014). Human and nature-caused hazards: The affect heuristic causes biased decisions. Risk Analysis, 34(8), 1482ā€“1494. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12179

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99ā€“118.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Slovic, P. (2010). The feeling of risk. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 311ā€“322.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Slovic, P., Monahan, J., & MacGregor, D. G. (2000). Violence risk assessment and risk communication: The effects of using actual cases, providing instruction, and employing probability versus frequency formats. Law and Human Behavior, 24(3), 271.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Slovic, P., & Peters, E. (2006). Risk perception and affect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(6), 322ā€“325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00461.x

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Slovic, P., Peters, E., Finucane, M. L., & MacGregor, D. G. (2005). Affect, risk, and decision making. Health Psychology, 24(4S), S35.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Smith, A. R., Windschitl, P. D., & Bruchmann, K. (2013). Knowledge matters: Anchoring effects are moderated by knowledge level. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(1), 97ā€“108.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 437ā€“446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.437

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (2003). Heuristic strategies for estimation under uncertainty: The enigmatic case of anchoring. In G. V. Bodenhausen & A. J. Lambert (Eds.), Foundations of social cognition: A festschrift in honor of Robert S. Wyer, Jr (pp. 79ā€“95). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness. Yale University Press.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Todd, P. M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2012). Environments that make us smart: Ecological rationality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(3), 167ā€“171.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 76(2), 105ā€“110. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031322

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207ā€“232.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124ā€“1131.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90(4), 293ā€“315.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • United States National Park Service. (2017). Wildlife viewingā€”Yellowstone national park. Retrieved August 17, 2017, from https://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/viewanim.htm

  • Uttl, B., Mitchell, C., White, C. A., & McDouall, J. (2012). Avalanche accident risk reduction tools in a North American context. In Proceedings of the International Snow Science Workshop, Anchorage, AK, pp. 834ā€“839.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • VƤstfjƤll, D., Peters, E., & Slovic, P. (2008). Affect, risk perception and future optimism after the tsunami disaster. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(1), 64ā€“72.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Vranas, P. B. (2000). Gigerenzerā€™s normative critique of Kahneman and Tversky. Cognition, 76(3), 179ā€“193.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • WƤnke, M. (2013). Almost everything you always wanted to know about ease-of-retrieval effects. In C. Unkelbach & R. Greifeneder (Eds.), The experience of thinking how the fluency of mental processes influences cognition and behaviour (pp. 151ā€“169). London: Psychology Press.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • WƤnke, M., Bohner, G., & Jurkowitsch, A. (1997). There are many reasons to drive a BMW: Does imagined ease of argument generation influence attitudes? Journal of Consumer Research, 24(2), 170ā€“177. https://doi.org/10.1086/209502

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Wansink, B., Kent, R. J., & Hoch, S. J. (1998). An anchoring and adjustment model of purchase quantity decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), 71.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Wilkinson, T. M. (2013). Nudging and manipulation. Political Studies, 61(2), 341ā€“355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00974.x

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Wilson, T. D., Houston, C. E., Etling, K. M., & Brekke, N. (1996). A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125(4), 387ā€“402. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.125.4.387

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Young, W., Hwang, K., McDonald, S., & Oates, C. J. (2010). Sustainable consumption: Green consumer behaviour when purchasing products. Sustainable Development, 18(1), 20ā€“31.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Zaval, L., & Cornwell, J. F. M. (2016). Cognitive biases, non-rational judgments, and public perceptions of climate change. In M. C. Nisbet, M. Schafer, E. Markowitz, S. Ho, S. Oā€™Neill, & J. Thaker (Eds.), Oxford research encyclopedia of climate science (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.304

    ChapterĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Zaval, L., Keenan, E. A., Johnson, E. J., & Weber, E. U. (2014). How warm days increase belief in global warming. Nature Climate Change, 4(2), 143ā€“147. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2093

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martina Raue .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

Ā© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Raue, M., Scholl, S.G. (2018). The Use of Heuristics in Decision Making Under Risk and Uncertainty. In: Raue, M., Lermer, E., Streicher, B. (eds) Psychological Perspectives on Risk and Risk Analysis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92478-6_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics