Mind & Society

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 133–148 | Cite as

Gigerenzer’s ‘external validity argument’ against the heuristics and biases program: an assessment

Article

Abstract

Gigerenzer’s ‘external validity argument’ plays a pivotal role in his critique of the heuristics and biases research program (HB). The basic idea is that (a) the experimental contexts deployed by HB are not representative of the real environment and that (b) the differences between the setting and the real environment are causally relevant, because they result in different performances by the subjects. However, by considering Gigerenzer’s work on frequencies in probability judgments, this essay attempts to show that there are fatal flaws in the argument. Specifically, each of the claims is controversial: whereas (b) is not adequately empirically justified, (a) is inconsistent with the ‘debiasing’ program of Gigerenzer’s ABC group. Therefore, whatever reason we might have for believing that the experimental findings of HB lack experimental validity, this should not be based on Gigerenzer’s version of the argument.

Keywords

Heuristics and biases Judgemental biases External validity Probabilistic thinking Frequentistic thinking Debiasing Field experiments 

References

  1. Berkeley D, Humphreys P (1982) Structuring decision problems and the bias heuristic. Acta Psychol 50(3):201–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Binmore K (1999) Why experiment in economics? Econ J 109:16–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonini N, Tentori K, Osherson D (2004) A different conjunction fallacy. Mind Lang 19(2):199–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bookstaber R, Langsam J (1985) On the optimality of coarse behaviour. J Theor Biol 116:161–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brunswik E (1955) Symposium on the probability approach in psychology. Psychol Rev 62(3):193–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buller DJ (2005) Adapting minds: evolutionary psychology and the persistent quest for human nature. MIT Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  7. Bullock S, Todd PM (1999) Made to measure: ecological rationality in structured environments. Mind Mach 9:497–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Camerer CF (2000) Prospect theory in the wild: evidence from the field. In: Kahneman D, Tversky A (eds) Choices, values and frames. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 288–300Google Scholar
  9. Campbell DT (1957) Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychol Bull 54:297–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carruthers P (2007) Simple heuristics meet massive modularity. In: Carruthers P, Laurence S, Stich SP (eds) The innate mind: culture and cognition. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Charness G, Karni E, Levin D (2010) On the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment: new experimental evidence regarding Linda. Game Econ Behav 68:551–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chase VM, Hertwig R, Gigerenzer G (1998) Visions of rationality. Trends Cogn Sci 2(6):206–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen LJ (1981) Can human rationality be experimentally demonstrated? Behav Brain Sci 4:317–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cosmides L, Tooby J (1992) Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In: Barkow JH, Cosmides L, Tooby J (eds) The adapted mind: evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 163–228Google Scholar
  15. Cosmides L, Tooby J (1996) Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty. Cognition 58:1–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dhami M, Hoffrage K, Hertwig R (2004) The role of representative design in an ecological approach to cognition. Psychol Bull 130(3):959–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Edwards W (1966) Nonconservative information processing systems. University of Michigan, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  18. Edwards W (1983) Human cognitive capabilities, representativeness, and ground rules for research. In: Humphreys P, Svenson O, Vari A (eds) Analysing and aiding decision processes, vol 18. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 507–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fiedler K (1988) The dependence of the conjunction fallacy on subtle linguistic factors. Psychol Res 50(3):123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fisk JE, Slattery R (2005) Reasoning about conjunctive probabilistic concepts in childhood. Can J Exp Psychol 59:168–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fodor J, Piattelli-Palmarini M (2010) What Darwin got wrong? Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Gigerenzer G (1984) External validity of laboratory experiments: the frequency–validity relationship. Am J Psychol 97(2):185–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gigerenzer G (1991) How to make cognitive illusions disappear. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 45(2):83–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gigerenzer G (1994) Why the distinction between single-event probabilities and frequencies is important for psychology? In: Wright G, Ayton P (eds) Subjective probability. Wiley, New York, pp 129–161Google Scholar
  25. Gigerenzer G (1995) The taming of content; some thoughts about domains and modules. Think Reason 1:324–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gigerenzer G (1996) On narrow norms and vague heuristics: a reply to Kahneman and Tversky. Psychol Rev 103(3):592–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gigerenzer G (1997) The modularity of social intelligence. In: Whiten A, Byrne R (eds) Machiavellian intelligence II: extensions and evaluations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 264–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gigerenzer G (1998) Ecological intelligence: an adaptation for frequencies. In: Cummins D, Allen C (eds) The evolution of mind. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 9–29Google Scholar
  29. Gigerenzer G (2001) Ideas in exile: the struggles of an upright man. In: Hammond KR, Stewart TR (eds) The essential Brunswik: beginning, explications, applications. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 445–452Google Scholar
  30. Gigerenzer G (2002) Reckoning with risk: learning to live with uncertainty. Penguin Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Gigerenzer G (2006) Gut feelings: the intelligence of the unconscious. Penguin Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Gigerenzer G (2008) Moral intuition = fast and frugal heuristics? In: Sinnott-Armstrong W (ed) Moral psychology, vol 2: the cognitive science of morality: intuition and diversity. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 1–26Google Scholar
  33. Gigerenzer G, Hug K (1992) Domain-specific reasoning: social contracts, cheating, and perspective Change. Cognition 43:127–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gigerenzer G, Sturm T (in press) How (far) can rationality be naturalized? SyntheseGoogle Scholar
  35. Gigerenzer G, Hoffrage U, Kleinbolting H (1991) Probabilistic mental models: a Brunswikian theory of confidence. Psychol Rev 98(4):506–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gilovich T, Vallone R, Tversky A (1985) The hot hand in basketball: on the misperception of random sequences. Cogn Psychol 17:295–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (2002) Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Girotto V, Gonzalez M (2001) Solving probabilistic and statistical problems: a matter of question form and information structure. Cognition 78:247–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Girotto V, Gonzalez M (2008) Children’s understanding of posterior probability. Cognition 106:325–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Grether DM, Plott CR (1979) Economic theory of choice and the preference reversals phenomenon. Am Econ Rev 69(4):623–638Google Scholar
  41. Harrison GW, List JA (2004) Field experiments. J Econ Lit 42:1009–1055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hastie R, Dawes R (2001) Rational choice in an uncertain world: the psychology of judgment and decision making. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  43. Hertwig R, Chase VM (1998) Many reasons or just one: how response mode affects reasoning in the conjunction problem. Think Reason 4:319–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hertwig R, Gigerenzer G (1999) The conjunction fallacy revisited: how intelligent inferences look like reasoning errors. J Behav Decis Mak 12:275–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hoffrage U, Gigerenzer G, Krauss S, Martignon L (2002) Representation facilitates reasoning: what natural frequencies are and what they are not. Cognition 84:343–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hogarth RM (1981) Beyond discrete biases: functional and dysfunctional aspects of judgmental heuristics. Psychol Bull 90(2):197–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jones SK, Jones T, Frisch D (1995) Biases of probability assessment: a comparison of frequency and single-case judgments. 122 61(4):109–122Google Scholar
  48. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1973) On the psychology of prediction. Psychol Rev 80(2):237–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1996) On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychol Rev 103(3):591–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Koehler J (1996) On conveying the probative value of DNA evidence: frequencies, likelihood ratios, and error rates. U Colo Law Rev 67(3):859–886Google Scholar
  52. Lee JC (2008) Epistemology by applied cognitive psychology and the ‘strong replacement’ of normative psychology. Philos Soc Sci 38:55–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Levitt SD, List JA (2009) Field experiments in economics: the past, the present and the future. Eur Econ Rev 53:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. List JA (2008) Homo experimentalis evolves. Science 321:207–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Maciejovsky B, Budescu DV (2007) Collective induction without cooperation? Learning and knowledge transfer in cooperative groups and competitive auctions. J Pers Soc Psychol 92(5):854–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Moro R (2009) On the nature of the conjunction fallacy. Synthese 171:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nilsson H, Andersson P (2010) Making the seemingly impossible appear possible: effects of conjunction fallacies in evaluations of bets on football games. J Econ Psychol 3:172–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Politzer G (2004) Reasoning, judgement and pragmatics. In: Noveck IN, Sperber D (eds) Experimental pragmatics. Palgrave, Houndmills, pp 94–115Google Scholar
  59. Politzer G, Noveck IA (1991) Are conjunction rule violations the result of conversational rule violations? J Psycholinguist Res 20:83–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Samuels R, Stich S, Bishop M (2002) Ending the rationality wars: how to make disputes about human rationality disappear? In: Renee R (ed) Common sense, reasoning and rationality. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 236–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Scher SJ, Rauscher F (2003) Evolutionary psychology: alternative approaches. Kluwer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  62. Simon HA (1955) A behavioural model of rational choice. Q J Econ 69:99–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sinnott-Armstrong W, Young L, Cushman F (2010) Moral intuitions. In: Doris J (ed) The moral psychology handbook. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  64. Sloman SA, Over D, Slovak L, Stibel JM (2003) Frequency illusions and other fallacies. Organ Behav Hum Dec 29:296–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Smith EA, Borgerhoff Mulder M, Hill J (2001) Controversies in the evolutionary social sciences: a guide for the perplexed. Trends Ecol Evol 16:128–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stanovich K (2003) Evolutionary versus instrumental goals: how evolutionary psychology misconceives human rationality? In: Over E (ed) Evolution and the psychology of thinking: the debate. Psychological Press, New York, pp 171–230Google Scholar
  67. Stein E (1996) Without good reason: the rationality debate in philosophy and cognitive science. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  68. Sterelny K, Griffiths PE (1999) Sex and death: an introduction to philosophy of biology. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  69. Stevens JR (2010) Rational decision making in primates: the bounded and the ecological. In: Platt ML, Ghazanfar AA (eds) Primate neuroethology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 96–116Google Scholar
  70. Stolarz-Fantino S, Fantino E, Zizzo DJ, Wen J (2003) The conjunction fallacy: new evidence for robustness. Am J Psychol 116:15–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sunstein CR (1997) Behavioral analysis of law. U Chic Law Rev 64:1175–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Téglás E, Girotto V, Gonzalez M, Bonatti L (2007) Intuitions of probabilities shape expectations about the future at 12 months and beyond. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:19156–19159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Téglás E, Vul E, Girotto V, Gonzalez M, Tenenbaum JB, Bonatti L (2011) Pure reasoning in 12-month-old infants as probabilities inference. Science 332:1054–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tentori K, Bonini N, Osherson D (2004) The conjunction fallacy: a misunderstanding about conjunction? Cogn Sci 28(2):467–477Google Scholar
  75. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2008) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  76. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1983) Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychol Rev 90(4):293–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wedell DH, Moro R (2008) Testing boundary conditions for the conjunction fallacy: effects of response mode, conceptual focus and problem type. Cognition 107:105–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations