1 / 35

How it looks if decisions are made from memory

How it looks if decisions are made from memory. Arndt Bröder & Stefanie Schiffer (2003) Department of Psychology, University of Bonn broeder@uni-bonn.de Thanks to: Jutta Bierwirth, Arvid Herwig, Andrea Kurth, Susanne Neufang & Nathalie Ziegler (data collection) DFG (funding). Overview.

kimi
Download Presentation

How it looks if decisions are made from memory

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. How it looks if decisions are made from memory Arndt Bröder & Stefanie Schiffer (2003) Department of Psychology, University of Bonn broeder@uni-bonn.de Thanks to: Jutta Bierwirth, Arvid Herwig, Andrea Kurth, Susanne Neufang & Nathalie Ziegler (data collection) DFG (funding)

  2. Overview • The Adaptive Toolbox idea • Take The Best and other heuristics • The „Memory Search“-Hypothesis • Experiment 1: Pilot study • Experiment 2: Memory vs. screen • The Format-Hypothesis • Experiment 3: representational format • Summary & Perspective

  3. 1. The Adaptive Toolbox • Gigerenzer & Selten (2001) view the human mind as an „adaptive toolbox“ with • domain-specific simple heuristics • that follow simple decision rules(„fast“), • need little information(„frugal“), • and are applied adaptively.

  4. Open questions (selection): • Selection mechanism for heuristics? („meta-rule“) • Status of toolbox: Theory? Framework? Applicability? Empirical Predicitions? • Empirical evidence?

  5. 2. The „Take The Best“-Heuristic • Domain: probabilistic inferences with uncertain knowledge • Which way leads to the city center: Left or right? • Which share will be more profitable: Volkswagen or BMW? • Which nation has a higher per capita GDP: Norway or Spain? • Which city has more inhabitants: Heidelberg or Bonn? • Which food contains more cholesterol: Fish `n Chips or pumpkin pie? • etc. • Make a „best guess“ according to probabilistic cue knowledge • How is the cue knowledge integrated?

  6. Example • Which European country has the higher per capita GDP? • Take The Best (TTB): „Spain“ • Noncompensatory, little info required, ordinal cue weighting • Weighted Additive Strategy (COMP): „Norway“ • Compensatory, high info requirement, absolute cue weighting • Majority Rule (EWL):„Norway“ • Compensatory, medium info requirement, no cue weighting

  7. TTB: Empirical Evidence • Few Studies concerning TTB & LEX: • Rieskamp & Hoffrage (1999) • Bröder (2000 ; JEP:LMC) • Newell, Weston & Shanks (2001) • Läge, Christen & Daub (2002) • Newell & Shanks (2003; JEP:LMC) • Newell, Rakow, Weston & Shanks (in press) • Bröder (in press, JEP:LMC) • (COARSE-GRAINED!) SUMMARY: • TTB appears to belong to the toolbox. • The „default“, however, seems to be a compensatory strategy which is only abandoned in the case of high information costs (relative to gains)

  8. 3. The „Memory Search“-Hypothesis • The standard experimental paradigm in multi-attribute decision research (Structural Modeling as well as Process Tracing) consists of presenting all relevant attribute information to the participant. • Gigerenzer & Todd‘s criticism (1999): • "we refer to this type of task as inference from givens, as opposed to inference from memory or inference from the external environment, both of which require search. (...) [E]xperiments in which search is obviated are unsuitable for testing models of ecological and bounded rationality that rely on limited information search as a central component." (p. 23) • MSH: TTB (and other fast and frugal heuristics) will be used when inference is from memory

  9. My criticism: • The authors do not even give a hint how this memory search hypothesis could be tested empirically. • Therefore, this looks like an attempt to make the „fast and frugal“ framework immune to empirical critique! • Increasing the precision of a hypothesis involves delineating constraints and deriving new predictions.

  10. Methodical problems & solutions: • Problem 1: Participants‘ knowledge base must be known to the experimenter •  Participants learn attribute patterns of objects by heart • Problem 2: How can strategies be inferred when (a) response errors are allowed and (b) Process Tracing is impossible? •  Bayesian model selection method based on likelihood of empirical choice vectors, given the models (=measurement model)

  11. Paradigm • Criminal story: • A popular singer was murdered by one of his 10 former lovers...

  12. Experiment 1: Pilot study • Aim: • Material testing: Can it be learned in a reasonable amount of time? • Do participants use TTB when deciding from memory? • Participants: • 50 Students of Bonn university (35f, 15m, age 25.5)

  13. Learning phase

  14. Decision Phase

  15. Results Experiment 1 • 64% (!) of participants classified as TTB users • estimated reponse error rate: 18%

  16. Discussion Experiment 1 • Surprisingly high rate of TTB-users seems to confirm the MSH • Caveat: Maybe a materials effect! A direct comparison of „inference from givens“ and „inference from memory“ is necessary.

  17. Experiment 2: Memory vs. Screen • Design: • „Inference from memory“ (replication of Study 1) • vs. • „Inference from givens“ (attribute information available on the screen) • Participants: • 50 Students of Bonn University (35f, 15m, age 24.1)

  18. Results of Experiment 2 • Less TTB-users than in Experiment 1(n.s.), but significant difference between conditions (2(2)=6.25; p<.05; w=0.35) • Estimated response errors: 26% vs. 8% (t(48)=7.33, p<.05)

  19. Discussion concerning the MSH • The Memory Search Hypothesis of Gigerenzer & Todd (1999) was corroborated. • In line with other studies this suggests that memory search causes subjective costs which trigger the use of „fast and frugal“ heuristics Question: Is search in memory always costly?

  20. 4. The Format-Hypothesis • TTB is a sequential heuristic. • Sequential retrieval is plausible for a verbal or propositional information format. • Image-based formats cause simultaneous retrieval of cue information which should trigger the usual preference for compensatory decision making. • Hence: Image-based representation may be a boundary condition for MSH

  21. Experiment 3: Representation format • Design (simplified): • verbal Cue-Info vs. image-based Cue-Info • Realization: • Presentation of items in a way encouraging holistic image-based encoding (Stimuli: www.otto.de, virtual dressing room). • Participants: • 114 Students of Bonn University and other volunteers (76f, 38m, age:24.4)

  22. Learning (1)

  23. Learning (2)

  24. Learning (3)

  25. Learning (4)

  26. Learning (5)

  27. Decision Phase

  28. Results Experiment 3 • Difference consistent with hypothesis (2(2)=10.98, p<.01) • estimated response error: 30%

  29. 5. Summary • Summary: • TTB belongs to the toolbox • It is especially prevalent in decisions from memory when this information is in a verbal/propositional format. • An image-based format leads to more compen-satory DM. • „cognitive algorithms (...) cannot be divorced from the data format on which they operate“(Gigerenzer & Hoffrage, 1995, p. 710)

  30. Perspective • Future projects • How adaptive is the toolbox? • Precise formulation of boundary conditions and empirical testing • Influence of habits and personality differences • Closer connection between decision research and other fields of cognitive pychology • representational assumptions • working memory components

  31. Thank you for your attention!

  32. Appendix • Critical item Types

  33. Item types: • Critical evidence found at scene of crime: Blood type A, Marlboro cigarettes, Chanel perfume, limousine TTB=COMP=EWL TTB≠(COMP=EWL) TTB=COMP; EWL=?

  34. Does an image-based format exist? • Pro: • Con: • Compromise: There is a special format of representation which also contains propositional information (Kosslyn, 1994). It is not a photograph-like copy of the physical world.

More Related