The effects of construal level on heuristic reasoning: The case of representativeness and availability.

Abstract

Reasoning heuristics underlie many judgments (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). However, the distinction among these heuristics has never been clear. Availability (the ease with which specific instances come to mind) and representativeness (judgments based on the similarity between a target and an abstract representation) have been used to account for the same phenomena, and the processes underlying each heuristic have not been definitively identified. Construal level theory suggests that events can be represented at either a higher, more abstract level, or a lower, more concrete level, although the effect of construal level on heuristic reasoning has not been fully explored. We propose that high levels of construal increase reliance on the representativeness heuristic, whereas low levels of construal favor the use of availability. In three studies, we test whether the effect of construal level on heuristic reasoning depends on the process proposed to underlie each heuristic. Low levels of construal increase the salience of and concreteness of features and thus increase decisions relying on the availability heuristic (Study 3). On the other hand, because an abstract construal level increases the focus on similarity and abstract representations, high levels of construal increase reliance on the representativeness heuristic (Studies 1, 2, and 3).

Additivity neglect in probability estimates: Effects of numeracy and response format

“…However, the heuristics and bias tradition has been criticized for being "one word explanations" that do not specify the cognitive process underlying, for example, the representativeness and availability heuristics (Gigerenzer, 1998). In addition, it is argued that heuristics lack predictive validity, as it is difficult to predict in advance which heuristic participants will make use of (Anderson, 1991;Kahneman & Frederick, 2002), though some attempts have been made (Braga, Ferreira, & Sherman, 2015). Thus, support theory does not fully account for the cognitive mechanisms involved in additivity neglect.…”

Applying Eye Movement Modeling Examples to Guide Novices’ Attention in the Comprehension of Process Models

“…Further, the human brain operates in such way that highlighted visual information is perceived more dominantly compared to non-highlighted information [ 53 ]. It can also lead to circumstances where the non-highlighted information is not perceived at all, although it may be of importance (e.g., availability heuristic) [ 54 ]. Towards cognitive load, it would be interesting to investigate the differences in the cognitive load during process model comprehension, when confronting participants with the application of EMMEs and without the application of any EMMEs.…”

When the Future “Spills Under”: General Self-Efficacy Moderates the Influence of Expected Exercise on Present Intellectual Performance

“…The extent to which participants thought they did well on the intellectual performance task (assessed to understand the link between self-awareness and performance) 2 26. Construal level (CL; Burgoon et al, 2013; assessed because of the implications of CL for reasoning; Braga et al, 2015) 2…”