Introduction – Heuristics and Biases: Then and Now

Gilovich, Thomas; Griffin, Dale W.

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.002

Cited by 173 publications

(121 citation statements)

References 1,298 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

108

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To paraphrase the title of a famous article (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977), they cannot tell what they do not know. Our application of dual-process theory to judgmental processes in the present article accords with recent developments in approaches to the heuristics and biases research program (Gilovich & Griffin, 2002;Kahneman & Frederick, 2002).…”

supporting

confidence: 58%

Explicit and implicit processes in multicue judgment

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Expert judgment is often exercised in situations in which multiple pieces of information are available and relevant in varying degrees. For example, a doctor may be attempting to diagnose the likely illness of a patient on the basis of symptoms, medical history, clinical examination, and results of imperfectly diagnostic tests, as well as relevant demographic information, such as gender, age, and occupation. To take another example, a personnel manager might be judging the suitability of a candidate for a position, taking into account work experience, qualifications, interview performance, and results of psychometric tests. These are examples of what are termed multicue judgments, where the various dimensions of information are the cues, whose values have particular and distinct instantiations for individual cases.What makes multicue judgment of psychological interest, as well as of practical importance, is the potential for bias when such judgments are made intuitively. If experts lack self-insight into the processes underlying these judgments, they may be unconsciously biased. For example, it may be contrary to law or company policy for the personnel manager to take into account age or gender in his or her decision making. If no explicit algorithm is followed, however, we may have nothing better than self-report from the decision maker to establish which cues were actually used and with what relative weighting. For this reason, a tradition of research based on social judgment theory was developed some years ago to capture the tacit policies that decision makers use when making multicue judgments. Social judgment theory has its origins in the psychology of Egon Brunswick and is rooted in the ecological approach to human cognition-specifically, by relating the way in which the available information is modeled by the environment, on the one hand, and by the judge, on the other. For the history of the theory, the reader is referred to Doherty and Kurz (1996) and, for details of the associated lens model methodology, to Cooksey (1996).Social judgment theory uses multiple linear regression to measure policies that are implicit in the judgments that people make-a technique known as policy capture. In such studies, participants-or judges-are asked to make wholistic judgments about a series of cases in which information about the same set of multiple cues is available. The implicit policy can then be inferred by performing a multiple linear regression analysis from the cues onto the judgments. The resulting beta weights tell us which cues influenced the judge and to what relative extent. In some studies, an objective criterion of correct performance is also available. In the case of personnel selection decisions, for example, we may be able to assess job performance at a later date. In a full lens model analysis, a second multiple regression is performed from the cues onto the criterion. A simplified (ignoring nonlinear and nonadditive aspects) version of the lens model equation is then given as follows: achievement = ...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 58%

Explicit and implicit processes in multicue judgment

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this article, I will therefore use the neutral terms System 1 and System 2 as introduced by Stanovich and West [5,6]. Contemporary interest in the dual-process accounts of reasoning is evidenced by the wider application to related fields such as judgment and decision making [7] and exciting developments in neuropsychological studies of reasoning, described below. System 1 is generally described as a form of universal cognition shared between humans and animals.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

In two minds: dual-process accounts of reasoning

Evans

2003

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

1,702

1,097

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…If a result is judged by the oversight body to be of very low relevance then its (low level of) significance will not be 21 The literature on biases of interpretation of events under uncertainty is vast. For a relatively recent summary see Gilovich and Griffin (2002). 22 One of the authors of this paper has discussed issues of interpretation of statistical information in the context of the disclosure to patients of surgeons' performance information (Clarke 2007).…”

Section: Objectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Duty to Disclose Adverse Clinical Trial Results

Liao¹,

Sheehan²,

Clarke³

2009

The American Journal of Bioethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Participants in some clinical trials are at risk of being harmed and sometimes are seriously harmed as a result of not being provided with available, relevant risk information. We argue that this situation is unacceptable and that there is a moral duty to disclose all adverse clinical trial results to participants in clinical trials. This duty is grounded in the human right not to be placed at risk of harm without informed consent. We consider objections to disclosure grounded in considerations of commercial interest, and we argue that these concerns are insufficient to override the moral duty to disclose adverse clinical trial results. However, we also develop a proposal that enables commercial interests to be protected, while promoting the duty to disclose adverse clinical trial results. 3The Duty to Disclose Adverse Clinical Trial Results

show abstract

Introduction – Heuristics and Biases: Then and Now

Cited by 173 publications

References 1,298 publications

Explicit and implicit processes in multicue judgment

Explicit and implicit processes in multicue judgment

In two minds: dual-process accounts of reasoning

The Duty to Disclose Adverse Clinical Trial Results

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About