On the psychology of the recognition heuristic: Retrieval primacy as a key determinant of its use.

Abstract

The recognition heuristic is a prime example of a boundedly rational mind tool that rests on an evolved capacity, recognition, and exploits environmental structures. When originally proposed, it was conjectured that no other probabilistic cue reverses the recognition-based inference (D. G. Goldstein & G. Gigerenzer, 2002). More recent studies challenged this view and gave rise to the argument that recognition enters inferences just like any other probabilistic cue. By linking research on the heuristic with research on recognition memory, the authors argue that the retrieval of recognition information is not tantamount to the retrieval of other probabilistic cues. Specifically, the retrieval of subjective recognition precedes that of an objective probabilistic cue and occurs at little to no cognitive cost. This retrieval primacy gives rise to 2 predictions, both of which have been empirically supported: Inferences in line with the recognition heuristic (a) are made faster than inferences inconsistent with it and (b) are more prevalent under time pressure. Suspension of the heuristic, in contrast, requires additional time, and direct knowledge of the criterion variable, if available, can trigger such suspension.

Magnitude comparison extended: How lack of knowledge informs comparative judgments under uncertainty.

“…As most previous investigations of this choice context have not included measures of subjective magnitude (but see Pachur & Hertwig, 2006), we cannot evaluate MaC directly. However, by addressing these additional findings, we hope to illustrate the explanatory power of MaC and, at the same time, lay out a set of predictions that might serve as the basis for future research.…”

“…We postpone the review of other RT-related findings to the General Discussion, where we show how they relate to and are compatible with the MaC framework. Pachur and Hertwig (2006;see also Volz et al, 2006) found that comparative judgments involving RU pairs are, on average, faster when the recognized pair member is chosen than when the unrecognized pair member is chosen. The authors attribute this finding to the "retrieval primacy" of recognition.…”

“…However, they also claim that people "suspend" the RH under certain conditions (Gigerenzer & Brighton, 2009;Marewski, Gaissmaier, Schooler, Goldstein, & Gigerenzer, 2010;Pachur & Hertwig, 2006;Volz et al, 2006). According to this view, "the use of the recognition heuristic involves two processes: first, recognition in order to see whether the heuristic can be applied, and second, evaluation in order to judge whether it should be applied" (Gigerenzer & Brighton, 2009, p. 132).…”

“…From a processing perspective, three issues have been particularly pertinent. First, the idea that any knowledge beyond recognition is ignored (at the PMM stage) has been very controversial from the outset, with one camp claiming to provide evidence in support of noncompensatory processing (e.g., Goldstein & Gigerenzer, 2002;Marewski, Gaissmaier, et al, 2010;Pachur & Hertwig, 2006;Volz et al, 2006) and an opposing camp claiming to provide evidence against it (e.g., Bröder & Eichler, 2006;Glöckner & Bröder, 2011;Hilbig, 2010;Hilbig, Erdfelder, & Pohl, 2010;Hilbig, Pohl, & Bröder, 2009;Newell & Fernandez, 2006;Newell & Shanks, 2004;Oppenheimer, 2003;Pohl, 2006;Richter & Späth, 2006). Second, the RH is assumed to operate on the strictly binary output of a recognition judgment; however, the link between the recognition-based inference and the underlying recognition process has remained unclear (e.g., Dougherty, Franco-Watkins, & Thomas, 2008;Erdfelder, Küpper-Tetzel, & Mattern, 2011;Pleskac, 2007;Rosburg, Mecklinger, & Frings, 2011;Schooler & Hertwig, 2005).…”

“…Among the suspension criteria are the following: (a) A person can retrieve "conclusive criterion knowledge" (Pachur & Hertwig, 2006, p. 997) that allows to answer the comparison question by deduction (i.e., an LMM is constructed; cf. Footnote 1); (b) the recognition cue in a given domain has a low validity (Pachur & Hertwig, 2006;Pohl, 2006); and (c) a low retrieval fluency of the recognized item in a given pair signals that the recognition cue might not be predictive in that particular instance (Marewski, Gaissmaier, et al, 2010;Marewski & Schooler, 2011). This last condition presupposes that the assessment of the speed with which the recognized pair member is processed-a potential index of the criterion (Hertwig, Herzog, Schooler, & Reimer, 2008;Schooler & Hertwig, 2005)-is used as a cue to evaluate the applicability of the RH.…”