what did Kahneman & Tversky do?
documented numerous deviations from normative decision-making. Their explanation was that people often rely on heuristics to make decisions, these lead to systematic biases. The resulting research programme became known as heuristics and biases.
what did Tversky and Edwards (1966) find?
what is local representiveness?
the belief that a series of independent trials with the same outcome will be followed by an opposite outcome sooner than expected by chance.
- If Ps are asked to write down a random sequence of numbers (or letters, or coin tosses) they tend to try and make the sequence look random at every point. Kahneman & Tversky (1972)
- ps exclude long runs
- try to make each number more equifrequent than would be by chance
what is gambler’s fallacy?
what is the hot hand? Gillovich, Vallone, & Tversky (1985)
why does local representativeness occur?
what is base rate neglect?
Tversky & Kahneman (1982) base rate neglect study
what is the representativeness heuristic?
a mental shortcut that we use when making judgments about probability
- e.g. Which of the following two scenarios is more likely?
- Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-war demonstrations.
- Linda is a bank teller OR Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.
- 90% of subjects feel that Linda is more likely to be a feminist bank teller than just a bank teller (and similarly think a war triggered by a 3rd country more likely)
what is the conjunction fallacy?
what are the criticisms on Kahneman et al’s methods?
what is anchoring and adjustment heuristic?
a cognitive heuristic where a person starts off with an initial idea and adjusts their beliefs based on this starting point. Anchoring and adjustment have been shown to produce erroneous results when the initial anchor deviates from the true value.
what is hindsight bias?
the tendency to view what has already happened as inevitable and obvious without realising that retrospective knowledge the outcome is influencing one’s judgement…I knew it all along
Hindsight bias (Fischhoff, 1975)
Framing
Imagine the U.K. is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual disease, which is expected to kill 60000 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimates of the consequences of the program are as follows :
A. If program A is adopted, 20,000 people will be saved.
B. If program B is adopted, there is a 1/3 chance that 60,000 people will be saved, and a 2/3 prob. that no people will be saved.
C. If program C is adopted, 40,000 people will die.
D. If program D is adopted, there is a 1/3 prob that nobody will die, and a 2/3 prob. that 60000 people will die.
- people preferred option A and D to B and C
- Although the numbers are the same in that option A = C, and B = D, the framing of the question drastically reverses the response pattern humans make
- risk averse for gains – lives saved for certain is more precious…
risk seeking for losses – the current reference is no-one has died yet, we want to avoid the loss of any life