HEURISTICS

DEFINITION
Methods by which one makes a judgment process simpler.
Mental shortcut : intuitive judgment, stereotyping,
educated guess. The fastest way of avoiding hard thinking.

Satisficing(accept an available option)

This heuristic is based on the belief that after we have considered options one by
one, we will select an option as soon as we find one that is satisfactory or good
enough to meet our minimum level of acceptability(Sternberg & Sternberg, 2009)

Elimination by aspects
If we are faced with more alternatives than we have time to consider, we may
use a process of elimination by aspects, in which we eliminate alternatives by
focusing on aspects of each alternative, one at a time

NOTABLE FIGURES:
1. Herbert A. Simon (1950): Bounded Rationality
2. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman (1972): Heuristics & Biases
3. Gerd Gigerenzer ( ): Fast & Frugal
4. Daniel Kahneman & Shane Frederick (2002): Attribute
Substitution TYPES of HEURISTICS
REPRESENTATIVENESS HEURISTICS
1. How obvious, equal, or representative it is in relation to the population - for example, many believe that
it is more likely to get GGGGG (girl) than BBBBB (boy) because it is born more girls than boys.
2. The degree of reflecting the underlying characteristics of the process, such as coincidence - for example,
most people considering the likelihood of getting BGBBBB less likely than getting GBGBBG. Although the
probability is the same for both. The reason for this is because the second compound of sex (GBGBBG) are
more randomly distributed, and therefore perceived as more likely. E.g. Economics| Child Development|
Clinical

AVAILABILITY HEURISTICS
THEORIES on HEURISTICS
2 STAGE SYSTEMS
Mental processes are divided into 2 systems:

Some judgment errors depend on the use of availability heuristics, which involves estimating the
frequencies of events on the basis of how easily we can call to mind what we perceive as relevant
information of a phenomenon (Eysenck & Keane, , 2010). E.g. Stereotypes|Voting |Lottery| Accidents

ANCHORING HEURISTICS
A heuristic closely linked to availability is the anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic. In this type of
heuristic, people adjust their evaluations of things by means of certain reference point called endanchors (Sternberg & Sternberg, 2009). This type of heuristic is related to humans tendency to anchor

the ratings in a specific starting point and adaption of further information in relation to this. E.g.
Performance| Price negotiation

SYSTEM 1
Works
unconsciously,
quickly proposes
answers
(intuition)
Effortless

SYSTEM 2
Works slowly,
demanding on
cognitive, monitors
quality of thoughts
(reason)
Effortful

ANCHORING
A heuristic closely linked to availability is the anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic. In this type of
heuristic, people adjust their evaluations of things by means of certain reference point called endanchors (Sternberg & Sternberg, 2009). This type of heuristic is related to humans tendency to anchor
the ratings in a specific starting point and adaption of further information in relation to this.

FRAMING
STROOP TEST
Instructed to report the colour in which words are
printed tend to stumble

This heuristic is based on the belief that in which way the options of a problem is presented, will influence the
selection of an option. For example, when we are faced with an option involving potential gains, we tend to choose
options that demonstrate risk aversion. This means that we would choose an option that offers a small but

certain gain rather than a large but uncertain gain (Sternberg & Sternberg, 2009).

ISSUES on HEURISTICS
ATTRIBUTE SUBSTITUTION
Difficult judgments are made by substituting conceptually
/semantically related assessments that are simpler and
more readily accessible.

REPRESENTATIVENESS CONTROVERSY

1.CONJUNCTION ERRORS
2.NEGLECT OF BASE RATES
Introduced by Tversky and Kahneman(1983) Adequate information was available
for the participant to avoid error

BIASES
If our heuristics fail to produce a correct judgment, it may result in a cognitive
bias, which is the tendency to draw incorrect conclusions based on cognitive
factors. I will in the following discuss some biases that occur in decision making:
illusory correlation, overconfidence, and hindsight bias.

ILLUSORY CORRELATION
Our predisposition(kecenderungan) to see particular events, attributes or
categories as going together is a phenomenon called illusory correlation. For
instance, in the case of attributes, we may use personal prejudices to form and use
stereotypes, and in the case of events, we may see false cause-effect relationships
(Sternberg & Sternberg, 2009).

OVERCONFIDENCE
Overconfidence is a common error, which is an individuals overvaluation of ones
own skills, judgment, knowledge e.g. One reason for such overconfidence, may be
that people not realize how little they know, and that their information may come
from unreliable sources. As a result, people sometimes make poor decisions.

FALLACIES
On the basis of heuristics central role in the decision process, the possibility
of incorrect inferences will be facilitated that can affect the decision
process.

GAMBLER'S FALLACY AND THE HOT HAND

This misconception can be related to representative heuristics, which is based
on the belief that the pattern of past events is likely to change. A contrast to this
fallacy is the hot hand effect, which refers to the belief that a set of events will
continue

CONJUNCTION FALLACY
HINDSIGHT BIAS
If When we look back at a situation, we believe we easily can see all the signs and
events that lead to a particular outcome; a bias called hindsight bias. This bias can
be common when intimate personal relationships are in trouble, where people
often fail to observe signs of the difficulties until the problems gets too big

ACCESSIBILITY AND SUBSTITUTION

Attribute substitution occurs when a relatively inaccessible target attribute is
assessed by mapping a relatively accessible and related heuristic attribute onto the
target scale. Some attributes are permanent candidates for the heuristic role
because they are routinely evaluated as part of perception and comprehension and
thus always accessible (Tversky & Kahneman, 1983)

which assumes that an individual gives a higher estimation for a subset of

events, than for the larger set of events containing the given subclass

SUNK-COST FALLACY
Which claims that the decision making process not only takes potential
consequences into consideration. It also takes account of past commitments.
According to the sunk costs fallacy, we will continue to invest in something, just
because we have invested in it before and hope to recover our contribution.

RESEARCH
ALGORITHMIC VERSUS HEURISTIC THINKING (Mathew
Lipman P58)
Algorithmic thinking is more of a method or procedure thinking to produce valid
results (systematic correctness).
Heuristic thinking focuses on results even though the after effect of the result is
consequences we do not want.
Garver says Prudential thinking falls in between algorithmic and heuristic thinking,
which is often difficult to distinguish.
Lipman however finds that there is little basis in distinguishing between ordinary and
higher thinking order with these two types of thinking, therefore he purposes to
concentrate more on the improvement of reasoning judgement by persistent practice
in distinguishing logical from illogical discourse.
He also said the improvement of judgement is getting the students involved in a never
ending continuum of judgement, where good judgement is part of higher-order
thinking,
is a combination
of creative
andLEAD
critical US
thinking
for excellent
DOwhich
HEURISTICS
HELP
US OR
ASTRAY
cognitive processing.
One of the most common heuristics the representativeness heuristic, which is the belief that
small samples of a population resemble the whole population. Our misunderstanding of
aspects of probability and base rates can also lead us to other mental shortcuts, such as in the
conjunction fallacy. Another common heuristic most of us use, is the availability heuristic, in
which we make judgments based on information that is available in our memory, without
bothering to seek less available information (Stenberg & Stenberg, 2009).

LITERATURE 1

How to cope with bias while adapting for inclusion in Physical Education and
Sports: A Judgement and Decision Making Perspective
By Yeshayahu Hutzler, Michael Bar-Eli
Key words: Special Needs, Inclusion, Attitudes, Decision Making, Adaption
1. How to cope with bias 2. Decision Environment, bounded rationality &
heuristic 3. Availability (Av) heuristic 4. Representative (Rep) heuristic
5. JDM in the context of adapting PE & S for inclusion
6. Inclusion in PE Teachers Bias
7. Inclusion in interscholastic Sports Administrators and Coaches Bias
8. Practitioners Bias while choosing an adaptation
9. Interventions Facilitating Inclusive JDM 10. JDM and Ecological Model

LITERATURE 2

Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristic & Bias

By Amos Tversky and Danial Kahneman
1. Decision making 2. Representativeness 3. Insensitivity to prior probability
4. Insensitivity to sample size 5. Misconceptions of chance
6. Insensitivity to predictability 7. The illusion of validity 8
8. Misconception of regression 9. Availability 10. Biases due to retirevability of
instances 11. Biases of Imaginability 12.Illusory correlation
13. Adjustment and anchoring 14. Insufficient adjustment
15. Anchoring in the assessment of subject probability distributions
16. Discussions

LITERATURE 5

Decisions Making heuristic and biases the life span

By Jo Neil, Tara Kams and Leo Schlosnagle
Key words: sunk costs, framing effect, dual processes, heuristic bias
1. JDM Judgement and Decision Making 2. Overview 3. Dual process method
4. Contextual framework of decision making as 3D process
5. Development change 6. Contextual influences
7. Motivation model of JDM across the life span
8. The sunk cost fallacy: overview 9. Decision context 10. Measurement
11. Explanation 12. Individual differences in decisions about sunk costs
13. Development trajectory 14. Early and later adulthood
15. Summary- the framing effect: overview

LITERATURE 3

Heuristic, Bias & Strategic

By A John Moule, Gerard P. Hodgkinson
1. Strategic decisions concern
2. Heuristic modes of thinking in decision and judgement 3. Cognitive Biases
4. Judgmental heuristics in Strategic decision making
5. Evidence for heuristics from documentary sources
6. Evidence for heuristics from experimental research
7. Evaluation of field and experimental research
8. Conclusions and Implications

LITERATURE 4

Heuristic Bias, Conflict and Rationality in Decision Making

By Wim De Neys Lab Experimental Psychology Belgium 2010
1. Introduction 2. Conflict detection studies 2.1. To detect or not to detect
2.2 To the brain and beyond 2.3 The Effortless nature of conflict detection
3. Implications for the rationality debate
4. Caveats and conclusions