Memory & Cognition

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 298–314 | Cite as

Use of the familiarity difference cue in inferential judgments

  • Ping Xu
  • Claudia González-Vallejo
  • Justin Weinhardt
  • Janna Chimeli
  • Figen Karadogan
Article
  • 91 Downloads

Abstract

The familiarity difference cue has been regarded as a general cue for making inferential judgments (Honda, Abe, Matsuks, & Yamagishi in Memory and Cognition, 39(5), 851–863, 2011; Schwikert & Curran in Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(6), 2341–2365, 2014). The current study tests a model of inference based on familiarity differences that encompasses the recognition heuristic (Goldstein & Gigerenzer, 1999, Goldstein & Gigerenzer in Psychological Review, 109(1), 75–90, 2002). In two studies, using a large pool of stimuli, participants rated their familiarity of cities and made choices on a typical city-size task. The data were fitted with the r-s model (Hilbig, Erdfelder, & Pohl in, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 37(4), 827–839, 2011), which was adapted to include familiarity differences. The results indicated that people used the familiarity difference cue because the participants ignored further knowledge in a substantial number of cases when the familiarity difference cue was available. An analysis of reaction-time data further indicated that the response times were shorter for heuristic judgments than for knowledge-only-based judgments. Furthermore, when knowledge was available, the response times were shorter when knowledge was congruent with a heuristic cue than when it was in conflict with it. Differences between the familiarity difference cue and the fluency heuristic (Schooler & Hertwig, 2005, Psychological Review, 112, 610–628) are discussed.

Keywords

Fluency heuristic Familiarity difference cue Recognition heuristic Multinomial processing trees R-S model Response time 

References

  1. Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219–235.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309341564 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Castela, M., Kellen, D., Erdfelder, E., & Hilbig, B. E. (2014). The impact of subjective recognition experiences on recognition heuristic use: A multinomial processing tree approach. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(5), 1131–1138.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0587-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Erdfelder, E., Küpper-Tetzel, C. E., & Mattern S. D. (2011). Threshold models of recognition and the recognition heuristic. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 7–22.Google Scholar
  4. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Knowing with certainty: The appropriateness of extreme confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3(4), 552–564.Google Scholar
  5. Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (2011a). The beauty of simple models: Themes in recognition heuristic research. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 392–395.Google Scholar
  6. Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (2011b). The recognition heuristic: A decade of research. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 100–121.Google Scholar
  7. Gigerenzer, G., Hoffrage, U., & Kleinbolting, H. (1991). Probabilistic mental models: A Brunswikian theory of confidence. Psychological Review, 98(4), 506–528.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Glöckner, A., & Betsch, T. (2012). Decisions beyond boundaries: When more information is processed faster than less. Acta Psychologica, 139(3), 532–542.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103(4), 650–669.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.650 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (1999). The recognition heuristic: How ignorance makes us smart. In G. Gigerenzer, P. M. Todd, & ABC Research Group (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 37–58). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic. Psychological Review, 109(1), 75–90.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.109.1.75 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hertwig, R., Herzog, S. M., Schooler, L. J., & Reimer, T. (2008). Fluency heuristic: A model of how the mind exploits a by-product of information retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1191–1206.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013025 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hilbig, B. E., Erdfelder, E., & Pohl, R. F. (2010). One-reason decision making unveiled: A measurement model of the recognition heuristic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 36(1), 123–134.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017518 Google Scholar
  14. Hilbig, B. E., Erdfelder, E., & Pohl, R. F. (2011). Fluent, fast, and frugal? A formal model evaluation of the interplay between memory, fluency, and comparative judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 37(4), 827–839.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022638 Google Scholar
  15. Hilbig, B. E., & Pohl, R. F. (2008). Recognizing users of the recognition heuristic. Experimental Psychology, 55, 394–401.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.55.6.394 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hilbig, B. E., & Pohl, R. F. (2009). Ignorance- versus evidence-based decision making: A decision time analysis of the recognition heuristic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 35(5), 1296–1305.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016565 Google Scholar
  17. Hilbig, B. E., Pohl, R. F., & Broder, A. (2009). Criterion knowledge: A moderator of using the recognition heuristic? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22(5), 510–522.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.644 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Honda, H., Abe, K., Matsuka, T., & Yamagishi, K. (2011). The role of familiarity in binary choice inferences. Memory and Cognition, 39(5), 851–863.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010-0057-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Horn, S., Pachur, T., & Mata, R. (2015). How does aging affect recognition-based inference? A hierarchical Bayesian modeling approach. Acta Psychologica, 154, 77–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.11.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 77(6), 1121–1134.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Lee, M. D., & Cummins, T. D. R. (2004). Evidence accumulation in decision making: Unifying the “take the best” and the “rational” models. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11, 343–352.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196581 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Leynes, P. A., Bruett, H., Krizan, J., & Veloso, A. (2017). What psychology process is reflected in the FN400 event-related potential component? Brain and Cognition, 113, 142–145.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2017.02.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Moshagen, M. (2010). MultiTree: A computer program for the analysis of multinomial processing tree models. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 42–54.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.1.42 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Newell, B. R. (2005). Re-visions of rationality? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(1), 11–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.11.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Newell, B. R., & Fernandez, D. (2006). On the binary quality of recognition and the inconsequentiality of further knowledge: Two critical tests of the recognition heuristic. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19(4), 333–346.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.531 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Newell, B. R., & Shanks, D. R. (2004). On the role of recognition in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 30(4), 923–935.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.4.923 Google Scholar
  27. Oppenheimer, D. M. (2003). Not so fast! (and not so frugal!): Rethinking the recognition heuristic. Cognition, 90(1), B1–B9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(03)00141-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). The secret life of fluency. Trends in Cognitive Science, 12, 237–241.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.02.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pachur, T., & Hertwig, R. (2006). On the psychology of the recognition heuristic: Retrieval primacy as a key determinant of its use. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory & Cognition, 32(5), 983–1002.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.5.983 Google Scholar
  30. Pachur, T., Todd, P. M., Gigerenzer, G., Schooler, L. J., & Goldstein, D. G. (2011). The recognition heuristic: A review of theory and tests. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Parks, C. M., & Yonelinas, A. P. (2007). Moving beyond pure signal-detection models: Comment on Wixted. Psychological Review, 114(1), 188–201.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.114.1.188 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Pohl, R. F. (2006). Empirical tests of the recognition heuristic. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19(3), 251–271.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.522 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pohl, R. F., Erdfelder, E., Michalkiewicz, M., Castela, M., & Hilbig, B. E. (2016). The limited use of the fluency heuristic: Converging evidence across different procedures. Memory & Cognition, 44(7), 1114–1126.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0622-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reid, A., & González-Vallejo, C. (2009). Emotion as a tradeable quantity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22(1), 62–90.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.612 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Richter, T., & Spath, P. (2006). Recognition is used as one cue among others in judgment and decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 32(1), 150–162.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0178-7393.32.1.150 Google Scholar
  36. Schooler L. J., & Hertwig R. (2005). How forgetting aids heuristic inference. Psychological Review, 112, 610–628.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.3.610 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Schweickart, O., & Brown, N. R. (2014). Magnitude comparison extended: How lack of knowledge informs comparative judgments under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 273–294.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031451 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schwikert, S. R., & Curran, T. (2014). Familiarity and recollection in heuristic decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(6), 2341–2365.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Whittlesea, B. W. A. (1993). Illusions of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1235–1253.Google Scholar
  40. Whittlesea, B. W. A., Jacoby, L. L., & Girard, K. (1990). Illusions of immediate memory: Evidence of an attributional basis for feelings of familiarity and perceptual quality. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 716–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yonelinas, A. P. (1994). Receiver-operating characteristics in recognition memory: Evidence for a dual-process model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 20(6), 1341–1354.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.6.1341 Google Scholar
  42. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 9(2), 1–27.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ping Xu
    • 1
  • Claudia González-Vallejo
    • 1
  • Justin Weinhardt
    • 2
  • Janna Chimeli
    • 1
  • Figen Karadogan
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyOhio UniversityAthensUSA
  2. 2.Haskayne School of BusinessUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyCentral Michigan UniversityMt. PleasantUSA

Personalised recommendations