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-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:46:41.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 1 - The Theoretical Beauty and Fertility of Sampling Approaches

A Historical and Meta-Theoretical Review

from Part I - Historical Review of Sampling Perspectives and Major Paradigms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2023

By
Klaus Fiedler ,
Peter Juslin  and
Jerker Denrell
Edited by
Klaus Fiedler ,
Peter Juslin  and
Jerker Denrell
Klaus Fiedler
Affiliation:
Universität Heidelberg
Peter Juslin
Affiliation:
Uppsala Universitet, Sweden
Jerker Denrell
Affiliation:
University of Warwick
Get access

Summary

The threefold purpose of this initial chapter is to provide a review of the historical origins and the methodological beauty of sampling approaches to judgment and decision-making, to illuminate the most prominent recent developments, and to provide a preview of all chapters included in this volume. Accordingly, the chapter is organized into three parts. The historical review in the first part highlights the progress from purely intra-psychic to cognitive-ecological perspectives on adaptive cognition, conceived as a genuine interaction between environmental constraints and adaptive agents’ sampling strategies. The review of novel trends in the second part testifies to the fertility of sampling approaches and the impressive amount of progress it has inspired in terms of functional-level applications in various areas, but also in terms of mechanistic and computational modeling. A preview of all 22 chapters of the present volume in the final part is organized into six sections, covering the full spectrum of these innovative developments in rationality research during the last 15 years.

Keywords

sampling distributionsampling strategiesskewnessregressivenessflat priorsdiagnosticityfunctional and mechanistic accountsheuristics and biases
Type
Chapter
Information
Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making , pp. 3 - 34
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

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

Ackerman, R. (2014). The Diminishing Criterion Model for metacognitive regulation of time investment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(3), 1349–1368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1993). Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), 431.Google Scholar
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258–290.Google Scholar
Azzi, A. E., & Jost, J. T. (1997). Votes without power: Procedural justice as mutual control in majority‐minority relations 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(2), 124–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernoulli, J. (1713). Ars conjectandi [The art of conjecturing]. Basel, Switzerland: E. & J. R. Thurnisius.Google Scholar
Bhatia, S., & Walasek, L. (2016). Event construal and temporal distance in natural language. Cognition, 152, 1–8.Google Scholar
Bhui, R., & Gershman, S. J. (2018). Decision by sampling implements efficient coding of psychoeconomic functions. Psychological Review, 125(6), 985.Google Scholar
Block, P., Hoffman, M., & Raabe, I. J., et al. (2020). Social network-based distancing strategies to flatten the COVID-19 curve in a post lockdown world. Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 588–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G. D., Lewandowsky, S., & Huang, Z. (2022). Social sampling and expressed attitudes: Authenticity preference and social extremeness aversion lead to social norm effects and polarization. Psychological review, 129(1), 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D. T., & Kenny, D. A. (1999). A primer on regression artifacts. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Combs, B., & Slovic, P. (1979). Newspaper coverage of causes of death. Journalism Quarterly, 56(4), 837–849.Google Scholar
Costello, F., & Watts, P. (2019). The rationality of illusory correlation. Psychological Review, 126(3), 437–450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243(4899), 1668–1674.Google Scholar
De Finetti, B. (1937). La prévision: Ses lois logiques, ses sources subjectives [Foresight: its logical laws, its subjective sources]. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré, 17, 1–68.Google Scholar
Denrell, J. (2005). Why most people disapprove of me: experience sampling in impression formation. Psychological Review, 112(4), 951–978.Google Scholar
Denrell, J., & Le Mens, G. (2007). Interdependent sampling and social influence. Psychological Review, 114(2), 398–422.Google Scholar
Denrell, J., & Le Mens, G. (2011). Seeking positive experiences can produce illusory correlations. Cognition, 119(3), 313–324.Google Scholar
Denrell, J., & Le Mens, G. (2012). Social judgments from adaptive samples. Social Judgment and Decision Making, 151–169.Google Scholar
Denrell, J., & Le Mens, G. (2013). Information sampling, conformity and collective mistaken beliefs. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 35, No. 35).Google Scholar
Denrell, J., & Le Mens, G. (2017). Information sampling, belief synchronization, and collective illusions. Management Science, 63(2), 528–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denrell, J., & March, J. G. (2001). Adaptation as information restriction: The hot stove effect. Organization Science, 12(5), 523–538.Google Scholar
Edwards, W. (1965). Optimal strategies for seeking information: Models for statistics, choice reaction times, and human information processing. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 2(2), 312–329.Google Scholar
Elwin, E., Juslin, P., Olsson, H., & Enkvist, T. (2007). Constructivist coding: Learning from selective feedback. Psychological Science, 18(2), 105–110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science 8(3), 223–241.Google Scholar
Fazio, R. H., Eiser, J. R., & Shook, N. J. (2004). Attitude formation through exploration: Valence asymmetries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 293–311.Google Scholar
Fiedler, K. (1991). The tricky nature of skewed frequency tables: An information loss account of distinctiveness-based illusory correlations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(1), 24.Google Scholar
Fiedler, K. (2000). Illusory correlations: A simple associative algorithm provides a convergent account of seemingly divergent paradigms. Review of General Psychology, 4(1), 25–58.Google Scholar
Fiedler, K. (2007). Information ecology and the explanation of social cognition and behavior. In Kruglanski, A. W. & Higgins, E. T. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles, 2nd ed. (pp. 176–200). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Fiedler, K. (2008). The ultimate sampling dilemma in experience-based decision-making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(1), 186–203.Google ScholarPubMed
Fiedler, K. (2014). From intrapsychic to ecological theories in social psychology: Outlines of a functional theory approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(7), 657–670.Google Scholar
Fiedler, K., Bluemke, M., Freytag, P., Unkelbach, C., & Koch, S. (2007). A semiotic approach to understanding the role of communication in stereotyping. In Stereotype dynamics (pp. 104–125). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Fiedler, K., Jung, J., Wänke, M., Alexopoulos, T., & de Molière, L. (2015). Toward a deeper understanding of the ecological origins of distance construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 57, 78–86.Google Scholar
Fiedler, K., Kemmelmeier, M., & Freytag, P. (1999). Explaining asymmetric intergroup judgments through differential aggregation: Computer simulations and some new evidence. European Review of Social Psychology, 10, 1–40.Google Scholar
Fiedler, K., & Kutzner, F. (2015). Information sampling and reasoning biases: Implications for research in judgment and decision-making. In Keren, G. & Wu, G. (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Fiedler, K., McCaughey, L. & Prager, J. (2021). Heuristics and biases. In Knauff, M. & Spohn, W. (Eds.), Handbook of rationality. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Fiedler, K., Renn, S.-Y., & Kareev, Y. (2010). Mood and judgments based on sequential sampling. Journal of Behavioral Decision-Making, 23(5), 483–495.Google Scholar
Fiedler, K., & Wänke, M. (2009). The cognitive-ecological approach to rationality in social psychology. Social Cognition, 27(5), 699–732.Google Scholar
Fiedler, K., Wöllert, F., Tauber, B., & Heß, P. (2013). Applying sampling theories to attitude learning in a virtual school class environment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(2), 222–231.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fox, C. R., & Hadar, L. (2006). “Decisions from experience”= sampling error+ prospect theory: Reconsidering Hertwig, Barron, Weber & Erev (2004). Judgment and Decision-Making, 1(2), 159–161.Google Scholar
Galesic, M., Olsson, H., & Rieskamp, J. (2018). A sampling model of social judgment. Psychological Review, 125(3), 363–390.Google Scholar
Goerner, G., Fiedler, K., & Olsson, H. (2012). Rethinking cognitive biases as environmental consequences. In Todd, P. M. & Gigerenzer, G. (Eds.), Ecological rationality: Intelligence in the world. (pp. 80–110). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Golman, R., Bhatia, S., & Kane, P. B. (2020). The dual accumulator model of strategic deliberation and decision-making. Psychological Review, 127(4), 477–504.Google 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(4), 392–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., & Erev, I. (2004). Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science, 15(8), 534–39.Google Scholar
Hertwig, R., Hogarth, R. M., & Lejarraga, T. (2018). Experience and description: Exploring two paths to knowledge. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(2), 123–128.Google Scholar
Hogarth, R. M. (2010). Intuition: A challenge for psychological research on decision-making. Psychological Inquiry, 21(4), 338–353.Google Scholar
Hogarth, R. M., Lejarraga, T., & Soyer, E. (2015). The two settings of kind and wicked learning environments. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(5), 379–385.Google Scholar
Hsee, C. K., & Zhang, J. (2010). General evaluability theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 343–355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Juslin, P., & Olsson, H. (1997). Thurstonian and Brunswikian origins of uncertainty in judgment: A sampling model of confidence in sensory discrimination. Psychological Review, 104, 344–366.Google Scholar
Justin, P., & Olsson, H. (2005). Capacity limitations and the detection of correlations: Comment on Kareev (2000). Psychological Review, 112(1), 256–267.Google Scholar
Kareev, Y. (2000). Seven (indeed, plus or minus two) and the detection of correlations. Psychological Review, 107(2), 397–402.Google Scholar
Khoury, M. J., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2014). Big data meets public health. Science, 346(6213), 1054–1055.Google Scholar
Konovalova, E., & Le Mens, G. (2020). An information sampling explanation for the in-group heterogeneity effect. Psychological Review, 127(1), 47.Google Scholar
Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., Schwieder, D., & Rich, R. F. (2000). Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. Journal of Politics, 62(3), 790–816.Google Scholar
Lang, P. J., Öhman, A., & Vaitl, D. (1988). The international affective picture system [photographic slides]. Gainesville: University of Florida, Center for Research in Psychophysiology.Google Scholar
Laughlin, P. R., & Ellis, A. L. (1986). Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(3), 177–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Mens, G., & Denrell, J. (2011). Rational learning and information sampling: On the “naivety” assumption in sampling explanations of judgment biases. Psychological Review, 118(2), 379–392.Google Scholar
Le Mens, G., Denrell, J., Kovács, B., & Karaman, H. (2019). Information sampling, judgment, and the environment: Application to the effect of popularity on evaluations. Topics in Cognitive Science, 11(2), 358–373.Google Scholar
Linville, P. W., Fischer, G. W., & Salovey, P. (1989). Perceived distributions of the characteristics of in-group and out-group members: Empirical evidence and a computer simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 165–188.Google Scholar
Lyons, A., & Kashima, Y. (2003). How are stereotypes maintained through communication? The influence of stereotype sharedness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 989.Google Scholar
Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational approach. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
McClamrock, R. (1991). Marr’s three levels: A re-evaluation. Minds and Machines, 1(2), 185–196.Google Scholar
Moore, D. A., & Healy, P. J. (2008). The trouble with overconfidence. Psychological Review, 115, 502–517.Google Scholar
Moussaïd, M., Herzog, S. M., Kämmer, J. E., & Hertwig, R. (2017). Reach and speed of judgment propagation in the laboratory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(16), 4117–4122.Google Scholar
Norton, M. I., Frost, J. H., & Ariely, D. (2007). Less is more: The lure of ambiguity, or why familiarity breeds contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 97–105.Google Scholar
Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1994). A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review, 101(4), 608–631.Google Scholar
Ohtsubo, Y., & Masuchi, A. (2004). Effects of status difference and group size in group decision making. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7(2), 161–172.Google Scholar
Olivola, C. Y., & Todorov, A. (2010). Fooled by first impressions? Reexamining the diagnostic value of appearance-based inferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 315–324.Google Scholar
Parducci, A. (1965). Category judgment: A range-frequency model. Psychological Review, 72(6), 407–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peterson, C. R., & Beach, L. R. (1967). Man as an intuitive statistician. Psychological Bulletin, 68(1), 29–46.Google Scholar
Pleskac, T. J., & Hertwig, R. (2014). Ecologically rational choice and the structure of the environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(5), 2000–2019.Google Scholar
Powell, D., Yu, J., DeWolf, M., & Holyoak, K. J. (2017). The love of large numbers: A popularity bias in consumer choice. Psychological Science, 28(10), 1432–1442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prager, J., & Fiedler, K. (2021). Forming impressions from self-truncated samples of traits: Interplay of Thurstonian and Brunswikian sampling effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(3), 474.Google Scholar
Prager, J., Krueger, J. I., & Fiedler, K. (2018). Towards a deeper understanding of impression formation: New insights gained from a cognitive-ecological perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(3), 379–397.Google Scholar
Rakow, T., Demes, K. A., & Newell, B. R. (2008). Biased samples not mode of presentation: Re-examining the apparent underweighting of rare events in experience-based choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106(2), 168–179.Google Scholar
Reeder, G. D., & Brewer, M. B. (1979). A schematic model of dispositional attribution in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 86, 61–79.Google Scholar
Rothbart, M., & Park, B. (1986). On the confirmability and disconfirmability of trait concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 131–142.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1985). Levels indeed! A response to Broadbent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114(2), 193–197.Google Scholar
Samuels, M. L. (1991). Statistical reversion toward the mean: More universal than regression toward the mean. American Statistician, 45(4), 344–346.Google Scholar
Sanborn, A. N., & Chater, N. (2016). Bayesian brains without probabilities. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(12), 883–893.Google Scholar
Savage, L. J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Schmittlein, D. C. (1989). Surprising inferences from unsurprising observations: Do conditional expectations really regress to the mean? American Statistician, 43(3), 176–183.Google Scholar
Schulz-Hardt, S., & Mojzisch, A. (2012). How to achieve synergy in group decision making: Lessons to be learned from the hidden profile paradigm. European Review of Social Psychology, 23(1), 305–343.Google Scholar
Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1987). Social judgment and social memory: The role of cue diagnosticity in negativity, positivity, and extremity biases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 689–699.Google Scholar
Stewart, N., Chater, N., & Brown, G. D. (2006). Decision by sampling. Cognitive Psychology, 53, 1–26.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. S. C., & McClelland, J. L. (2008). Connectionist models of cognition. In Sun, R. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of computational psychology (pp. 23–58). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816772.005Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence: Experimental studies. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L. (1927). The law of effect. American Journal of Psychology, 39(1/4), 212–222.Google Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 273–286.Google Scholar
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–232.Google Scholar
Ullrich, J., Krueger, J. I., Brod, A., & Groschupf, F. (2013). More is not less: Greater information quantity does not diminish liking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 909–920.Google Scholar
Unkelbach, C., Fiedler, K., Bayer, M., Stegmüller, M., & Danner, D. (2008). Why positive information is processed faster: The density hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 36–49.Google Scholar
Van Hiel, A., & Franssen, V. (2003). Information acquisition bias during the preparation of group discussion: A comparison of prospective minority and majority members. Small Group Research, 34(5), 557–574.Google Scholar
Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2006). Criteria-based content analysis: An empirical test of its underlying processes. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12(4), 337–349.Google Scholar
Walasek, L., & Stewart, N. (2015). How to make loss aversion disappear and reverse: Tests of the decision by sampling origin of loss aversion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 7–11.Google Scholar
Yaniv, I. (2004). The benefit of additional opinions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(2), 75–78.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org 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
×