Book contents
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Historical Review of Sampling Perspectives and Major Paradigms
- Part II Sampling Mechanisms
- Chapter 5 The J/DM Separation Paradox and the Reliance on the Small Samples Hypothesis
- Chapter 6 Sampling as Preparedness in Evaluative Learning
- Chapter 7 The Dog that Didn’t Bark
- Chapter 8 Unpacking Intuitive and Analytic Memory Sampling in Multiple-Cue Judgment
- Part III Consequences of Selective Sampling
- Part IV Truncation and Stopping Rules
- Part V Sampling as a Tool in Social Environments
- Part VI Computational Approaches
- Index
- References
Chapter 8 - Unpacking Intuitive and Analytic Memory Sampling in Multiple-Cue Judgment
from Part II - Sampling Mechanisms
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 June 2023
Book contents
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Historical Review of Sampling Perspectives and Major Paradigms
- Part II Sampling Mechanisms
- Chapter 5 The J/DM Separation Paradox and the Reliance on the Small Samples Hypothesis
- Chapter 6 Sampling as Preparedness in Evaluative Learning
- Chapter 7 The Dog that Didn’t Bark
- Chapter 8 Unpacking Intuitive and Analytic Memory Sampling in Multiple-Cue Judgment
- Part III Consequences of Selective Sampling
- Part IV Truncation and Stopping Rules
- Part V Sampling as a Tool in Social Environments
- Part VI Computational Approaches
- Index
- References
Summary
Cognitive models that assume that judgments are based on processes of sampling from memory have a long history in psychology and take a variety of forms, but the exact cognitive interpretations of them differ, are unclear, or remain elusive. Using the Precise/Not Precise (PNP) model (Sundh et al., 2021) we have revived an old approach to intuition and analyses, originally proposed by Egon Brunswik (1956). The model is based on the distinction between analytic algorithms that usually yield the same exact output and approximate intuitive algorithms that are rarely far off the mark but are inevitably perturbed by a random noise. The PNP model distinguishes intuitive and analytic processes depending on the error distributions around the model estimates. By combining the PNP model with specific cognitive algorithms, one can determine if analytic or intuitive cognitive processes implement the cognitive algorithms. In this chapter, we argue that also the memory sampling processes observed in multiple-cue judgments, characterized by good fit of the Generalized Context Model (Nosofsky, 2015), come in two different forms: one that involves analytic application of root-memorized individual exemplars and one that involves a noisy similarity-based inference about the likely criterion. We demonstrate that different parameterizations of the Generalized Context Model naturally imply response distributions that realize the distinction implied by the PNP model. With data from multiple-cue judgment, we show how the PNP model identifies, not only intuitive and analytic rule-based processes, but also processes of memory sampling with the empirical hallmarks of intuition and analysis.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making , pp. 177 - 204Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Brehmer, B. (1994). The psychology of linear judgement models. Acta Psychologica, 87(2–3), 137–154.Google Scholar
Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments (2nd ed., rev. and enl.). Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collsiöö, A., Juslin, P., & Winman, A. (2023). Is numerical information always beneficial? Verbal and numerical cue-integration in additive and non-additive tasks. Under review.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooksey, R. W. (1996). Judgment analysis: Theory, methods, and applications. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
DeLosh, E. L., Busemeyer, J. R., & McDaniel, M. A. (1997). Extrapolation: The sine qua non for abstraction in function learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(4), 968–986.Google Scholar
Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1986). Judging probable cause. Psychological Bulletin, 99(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 255–278.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2018). Dual-process theories. In Ball, L. J. & Thompson, V. A. (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook series: The Routledge international handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 151–166). London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241.Google Scholar
Hintzman, D. L. (1986). “Schema abstraction” in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 93(4), 411–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, J. A., von Helversen, B., & Rieskamp, J. (2014). Pillars of judgment: how memory abilities affect performance in rule-based and exemplar-based judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(6), 2242–2261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Juslin, P., Karlsson, L., & Olsson, H. (2008). Information integration in multiple cue judgment: A division of labor hypothesis. Cognition, 106(1), 259–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Juslin, P., Olsson, H., & Olsson, A. C. (2003). Exemplar effects in categorization and multiple-cue judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(1), 133–156.Google Scholar
Juslin, P., & Persson, M. (2002). PROBabilities from EXemplars (PROBEX): A “lazy” algorithm for probabilistic inference from generic knowledge. Cognitive Science, 26, 563–607.Google Scholar
Karelaia, N., & Hogarth, R. M. (2008). Determinants of linear judgment: A meta-analysis of lens model studies. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 404–426.Google Scholar
Karlsson, L., Juslin, P., & Olsson, H. (2007). Adaptive changes between cue abstraction and exemplar memory in a multiple-cue judgmentf task with continuous cues. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(6), 1140–1146.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W., & Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Intuitive and deliberate judgments are based on common principles. Psychological Review, 118(1), 97–109CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Little, J. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2015). Individual differences in category learning: Memorization versus rule abstraction. Memory & Cognition, 43(2), 283–297.Google Scholar
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95(4), 492–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85(3), 207–238.Google Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification–categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(1), 39–57.Google Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M. (2015). An exemplar-model account of feature inference from uncertain categorizations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 41, 1929–1941.Google ScholarPubMed
Nosofsky, R. M., & Johansen, M. K. (2000). Exemplar-based accounts of “multiple-system” phenomena in perceptual categorization. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 7(3), 375–402.Google Scholar
Pachur, T., & Olsson, H. (2012). Type of learning task impacts performance and strategy selection in decision making. Cognitive Psychology, 65(2), 207–240.Google Scholar
Platzer, C., & Bröder, A. (2013). When the rule is ruled out: Exemplars and rules in decisions from memory. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(5), 429–441.Google Scholar
Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111–163.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C. (1982). Dynamic memory: A theory of reminding and learning in computers and people. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shepard, R. N. (1994) Perceptual-cognitive universals as reflections of the world. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 2–28.Google Scholar
Sundh, J., Collsiöö, A., Millroth, P., & Juslin, P. (2021) Precise/not precise (PNP): A Brunswikian model that uses judgment error distributions to identify cognitive processes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28, 351–373.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90(4), 293.Google Scholar
Von Helversen, B., Mata, R., & Olsson, H. (2010). Do children profit from looking beyond looks? From similarity-based to cue abstraction processes in multiple-cue judgment. Developmental Psychology, 46(1), 220–229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Von Helversen, B., & Rieskamp, J. (2009). Models of quantitative estimations: rule-based and exemplar-based processes compared. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(4), 867–889.Google ScholarPubMed