| Title |
Individual differences in use of the recognition heuristic are stable across time, choice objects, domains, and presentation formats
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Memory & Cognition, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13421-015-0567-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martha Michalkiewicz, Edgar Erdfelder |
| Abstract |
The recognition heuristic (RH) is a simple decision strategy that performs surprisingly well in many domains. According to the RH, people decide on the basis of recognition alone and ignore further knowledge when faced with a recognized and an unrecognized choice object. Previous research has revealed noteworthy individual differences in RH use, suggesting that people have preferences for using versus avoiding this strategy that might be causally linked to cognitive or personality traits. However, trying to explain differences in RH use in terms of traits presupposes temporal and cross-situational stability in use of the RH, an important prerequisite that has not been scrutinized so far. In a series of four experiments, we therefore assessed the stability in RH use across (1) time, (2) choice objects, (3) domains, and (4) presentation formats of the choice objects. In Experiment 1, participants worked on the same inference task and choice objects twice, separated by a delay of either one day or one week. Experiment 2 replicated Experiment 1 using two different object sets from the same domain, whereas Experiment 3 assessed the stability of RH use across two different domains. Finally, in Experiment 4 we investigated stability across verbal and pictorial presentation formats of the choice objects. For all measures of RH use proposed so far, we found strong evidence for both temporal and cross-situational stability in use of the RH. Thus, RH use at least partly reflects a person-specific style of decision making whose determinants await further research. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 35 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 7 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 18 | 50% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 6% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 6% |
| Decision Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 8 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,384,302
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#947
of 1,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,587
of 252,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#17
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,575 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 252,501 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.