2011Oxford University Press eBooksRequires access

The Framework

Mark Kelman

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Researchers in both the “heuristics and biases” school and the school that extols the use of “fast and frugal” heuristics not only share similar methods but agree that people frequently make perfectly satisfactory judgments using limited information and limited computational abilities. However, those in the H&B school emphasize the degree to which the use of heuristics often prevents us from choosing options that would maximize expected value in the way that conventional rational choice theorists believe we do. Those who think of heuristics as “fast and frugal” techniques to make decisions that achieve an organism’s ends in a given environment are considerably less interested in “biases” than in achievements. Moreover, scholars in the two schools think differently about why using heuristics sometimes leads to mistakes; about the nature of rationality; about how heuristics emerge and operate; and about whether people are less prone to use heuristics when they have certain background traits or have more time or cognitive resources to reach a decision.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Researchers in both the “heuristics and biases” school and the school that extols the use of “fast and frugal” heuristics not only share similar methods but agree that people frequently make perfectly satisfactory judgments using limited information and limited computational abilities. However, those in the H&B school emphasize the degree to which the use of heuristics often prevents us from choosing options that would maximize expected value in the way that conventional rational choice theorists believe we do. Those who think of heuristics as “fast and frugal” techniques to make decisions that achieve an organism’s ends in a given environment are considerably less interested in “biases” than in achievements. Moreover, scholars in the two schools think differently about why using heuristics sometimes leads to mistakes; about the nature of rationality; about how heuristics emerge and operate; and about whether people are less prone to use heuristics when they have certain background traits or have more time or cognitive resources to reach a decision.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Researchers in both the “heuristics and biases” school and the school that extols the use of “fast and frugal” heuristics not only share similar methods but agree that people frequently make perfectly satisfactory judgments using limited information and limited computational abilities. However, those in the H&B school emphasize the degree to which the use of heuristics often prevents us from choosing options that would maximize expected value in the way that conventional rational choice theorists believe we do. Those who think of heuristics as “fast and frugal” techniques to make decisions that achieve an organism’s ends in a given environment are considerably less interested in “biases” than in achievements. Moreover, scholars in the two schools think differently about why using heuristics sometimes leads to mistakes; about the nature of rationality; about how heuristics emerge and operate; and about whether people are less prone to use heuristics when they have certain background traits or have more time or cognitive resources to reach a decision.

Key concepts: Heuristics, Social heuristics, Rationality, Computer science, Cognition, Psychology, Management science, Epistemology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Framework — Research Paper | ScholarLens