Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Urteilen und Entscheiden

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Allgemeine Psychologie

Zusammenfassung

Menschen müssen ständig unterschiedlichste Situationen beurteilen oder Entscheidungen treffen. Dabei können die Informationen mehr oder weniger eindeutig und die Folgen der Entscheidung mehr oder weniger schwerwiegend sein. Die Psychologie erforscht die Struktur von Urteilen und Entscheidungen sowie Einflussfaktoren und Prozesse, die sowohl „gute“ als auch „irrationale“ Urteile und Entscheidungen hervorbringen. Die empirische Erforschung des Urteilens und Entscheidens hat faszinierende Einblicke in die einzelnen Bestandteile des Entscheidens gewährt, zum Bespiel über typische Fehlleistungen, verwendete Strategien der Suche nach relevanter Information sowie über deren weitere Verarbeitung. Spannende Befunde und die daraus entwickelten psychologischen Theorien des Urteilens und Entscheidens werden in diesem Kapitel vorgestellt.

Schlüsselwörter: Urteilen; Entscheiden; Informationsverarbeitung; Rationalität; Heuristik; Täuschungen; Strategie

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  • Adelman, L. (1981). The influence of formal, substantive, and contextual task properties on the relative effectiveness of different forms of feedback in multiple-cue probability learning tasks. Organizational Behavior und Human Performance, 27, 423–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allais, M. (1953). Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axioms de l’e’cole americaine [Rational man’s behavior in face of risk: Critique of the American School’s postulates and axioms]. Econometrica, 21, 503–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 219–235.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Balzer, W. K., Doherty, M. E., & O’Connor, R. (1989). Effects of cognitive feedback on performance. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 410–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Hillel, M. (1980). The base-rate fallacy in probability judgments. Acta Psychologica, 44, 211–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbey, A. K., & Sloman, S. A. (2007). Base-rate respect: From ecological rationality to dual processes. Behavioral und Brain Sciences, 30, 241–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J. (2004). Normative models of judgment and decision making. In D. J. Koehler, & N. Harvey (Hrsg.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (S. 19–36). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J. (2008). Thinking and deciding (4. Aufl.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, G., & Erev, I. (2003). Small feedback-based decisions and their limited correspondence to description-based decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, M. H., & Gino, F. (2012). Behavioral ethics: Toward a deeper understanding of moral judgment and dishonesty. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 8, 85–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beach, L. R., & Mitchell, T. R. (1978). A contingency model for the selection of decision strategies. Academy of Management Review, 3, 439–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechara, A., & Damasio, A. R. (2005). The somatic marker hypothesis: A neural theory of economic decision. Games and Economic Behavior, 52, 336–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Begg, I. M., Anas, A., & Farinacci, S. (1992). Dissociation of processes in belief: Source recollection, statement familiarity, and the illusion of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 446–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D. E. (1985). Disappointment in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research, 33, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergert, F. B., & Nosofsky, R. M. (2007). A response-time approach to comparing generalized rational and take-the-best models of decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 107–129.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Betsch, T., & Haberstroh, S. (Hrsg.). (2005). The routines of decision making. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betsch, T., Funke, J., & Plessner, H. (2011). Denken – Urteilen, Entscheiden, Problemlösen. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Billings, R. S., & Marcus, S. A. (1983). Measures of compensatory and noncompensatory models of decision behavior: Process tracing versus policy capturing. Organizational Behavior und Human Performance, 31(3), 331–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, M. H. (2004). Causes of Allais common consequence paradoxes: An experimental dissection. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 48, 87–106. doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2004.01.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, M. H. (2008). Evaluation of the priority heuristic as a descriptive model of risky decision making: Comment on Brandstätter, Gigerenzer, and Hertwig (2006). Psychological Review, 115, 253–260. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.115.1.253.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, M. H. (2011). Testing mixture models of transitive preference: Comment on Regenwetter, Dana, and Davis-Stober (2011). Psychological Review, 118, 675–683.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, M. H., & Jou, J.-W. (1990). A theory of comparative response times and „difference“ judgments. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 184–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blank, H., Musch, J., & Pohl, R. F. (2007). Hindsight bias: On being wise after the event. Social Cognition, 25, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandstätter, E., Gigerenzer, G., & Hertwig, R. (2006). Making choices without trade-offs: The priority heuristic. Psychological Review, 113, 409–432. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.409.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Brehmer, B. (1980). In one word: Not from experience. Acta Psychologica, 45, 223–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brehmer, B. (1994). The psychology of linear judgement models. Acta Psychologica, 87, 137–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brehmer, A., & Brehmer, B. (1988). What have we learned about human judgment from thirty years of policy capturing? In B. Brehmer, & C. R. B. Joyce (Hrsg.), Human judgment: The SJT view (S. 75–114). Oxford, England: North-Holland.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brehmer, B., & Joyce, C. R. B. (Hrsg.). (1988). Human judgment: The SJT view. Oxford, England: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bröder, A. (2000a). A methodological comment on behavioral decision research. Psychologische Beiträge, 42, 645–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bröder, A. (2000b). Assessing the empirical validity of the „Take-the-best“ heuristic as a model of human probabilistic inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(5), 1332–1346.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bröder, A. (2003). Decision making with the „adaptive toolbox“: Influence of environmental structure, intelligence, and working memory load. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 611–625.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bröder, A. (2005). Entscheiden mit der „adaptiven Werkzeugkiste“: Ein empirisches Forschungsprogramm. Lengerich: Pabst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bröder, & Eichler, A. (2006). The use of recognition information and additional cues in inferences from memory. Acta Psychologica, 121, 275–284.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bröder, A., & Gaissmaier, W. (2007). Sequential processing of cues in memory-based multiattribute decisions. Psychonomic Bulletin und Review, 14, 895–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bröder, A., & Newell, B. R. (2008). Challenging some common beliefs: Empirical work within the adaptive toolbox metaphor. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 205–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bröder, A., & Schiffer, S. (2003). Take The Best versus simultaneous feature matching: Probabilistic inferences from memory and effects of representation format. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 277–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bröder, A., & Schiffer, S. (2006). Adaptive flexibility and maladaptive routines in selecting fast and frugal decision strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 904–918.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brunswik, E. (1952). The conceptual framework of psychology. (Int. Encycl. unified Sci., v. 1, no. 10.). Oxford, England: Univ. Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review, 62, 193–217.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Budescu, D. V., & Weiss, W. (1987). Reflection of transitive and intransitive preferences: A test of prospect theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 184–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review, 100, 432–459. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.432.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Camilleri, A. R., & Newell, B. R. (2011). When and why rare events are underweighted: A direct comparison of the sampling, partial feedback, full feedback and description choice paradigms. Psychonomic Bulletin und Review, 18, 377–384. doi:10.3758/s13423-010-0040-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casscells, W., Schoenberger, A., & Graboys, T. B. (1978). Interpretation by physicians of clinical laboratory results. The New England Journal of Medicine, 299, 999–1001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 und Review, 21, 1131–1138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (2002). Incorporating the irrelevant: Anchors in judgments of belief and value. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Hrsg.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (S. 120–138). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chase, V. M., Hertwig, R., & Gigerenzer, G. (1998). Visions of rationality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 206–214. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613%2898%2901179-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen-Szalanski, J. J., & Willham, C. F. (1991). The hindsight bias: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48, 147–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu, P. C., & Spires, E. E. (2003). Perceptions of accuracy and effort of decision strategies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(2), 203–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M., Jaffray, J.-Y., & Saϊd, T. (1987). Experimental comparison of individual behavior under risk and under uncertainty for gains and for losses. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Combs, B., & Slovic, P. (1979). Newspaper coverage of causes of death. Journalism Quarterly, 56, 837–849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czerlinski, J., Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1999). How good are simple heuristics? In Simple heuristics that make us smart (S. 97–118). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R. M. (2001). Everyday irrationality. How pseudo-scientists, lunatics, and the rest of us systematically fail to think rationally. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243, 1668–1674.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dechêne, A., Stahl, C., Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2010). The truth about the truth: A meta-analytic review of the Truth Effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 238–257.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, M. R., Franco-Watkins, A. M., & Thomas, R. (2008). Psychological plausibility of the theory of Probabilistic Mental Models and the Fast and Frugal Heuristics. Psychological Review, 115, 199–213.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eddy, D. M. (1982). Probabilistic reasoning in clinical medicine: Problems and opportunities. In D. Kahneman, & P. Slovic Tversky et al. (Hrsg.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (S. 249–267). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 380–417.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, H. J., Kleinmuntz, D. N., & Kleinmuntz, B. (1979). Linear regression and process-tracing models of judgment. Psychological Review, 86, 465–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenführ, F., Weber, M., & Langer, T. (2010). Rational Decision Making. Berlin, London: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ettlin, F., Bröder, A. und Henninger, M. (2015). A new task format for investigating information search and organization in multi-attribute decisions. Behavior Research Methods. 47, 506–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fechner, G. T. (1860). Elemente der Psychophysik. Leipzig: Duncker und Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler, K. (1988). The dependence of the conjunction fallacy on subtle linguistic factors. Psychological Research, 50, 123–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler, K. (1993). Kognitive Täuschungen: Faszination eines modernen Forschungsprogramms. In W. Hell, K. Fiedler, & G. Gigenzer (Hrsg.), Kognitive Täuschungen. Fehl-Leistungen und Mechanismen des Urteilens, Denkens und Erinnerns (S. 7–12). Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler, K. (2000). Beware of samples! A cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases. Psychological Review, 107, 659–676.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler, K. (2010). How to study cognitive decision algorithms: The case of the priority heuristic. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler, K., & Walka, I. (1993). Training lie detectors to use nonverbal cues instead of global heuristics. Human Communication Research, 20(2), 199–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight is not equal to foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 288–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galesic, M., Garcia-Retamero, R., & Gigerenzer, G. (2009). Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: Overcoming low numeracy. Health Psychology, 28, 210–216.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G. (1991). How to make cognitive illusions disappear: Beyond „heuristics and biases“. In W. Stroebe, & M. Hewstone (Hrsg.), European Review of Social Psychology (Bd. 2, S. 83–115). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G. (1996). On narrow norms and vague heuristics: A reply to Kahneman and Tversky. Psychological Review, 103, 592–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., & Edwards, A. (2003). Simple tools for understanding risks: From innumeracy to insight. British Medical Journal, 327, 741–744.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103, 650–669.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (2011). The recognition heuristic: A decade of research. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 100–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102, 684–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & Todd (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilovich, T., Vallone, R., & Tversky, A. (1985). The hot hand in basketball: On the misperception of random sequences. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 295–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Hrsg.). (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glöckner, A., & Betsch, T. (2008a). Do people make decisions under risk based on ignorance? An empirical test of the priority heuristic against cumulative prospect theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107, 75–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glöckner, A., & Betsch, T. (2008b). Modeling option and strategy choices with connectionist networks: Towards an integrative model of automatic and deliberate decision making. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 215–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glöckner, A., & Betsch, T. (2008c). Multiple-reason decision making based on automatic processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, und Cognition, 34, 1055–1075.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glöckner, A., & Betsch, T. (2012). Decisions beyond boundaries: When more information is processed faster than less. Acta Psychologica, 139, 532–542.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glöckner, & Bröder, A. (2014). Cognitive integration of recognition information and additional cues in memory-based decisions. Judgment and Decision Making, 9(1), 35–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glöckner, A., Hilbig, B. E., Henninger, F, & Fiedler, S. (2016). The reversed Description-Experience gap: disentangling sources of presentation format effects in risky choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 486–508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glöckner, A., & Witteman, C. (2010). Beyond dual-process models: A categorisation of processes underlying intuitive judgement and decision making. Thinking und Reasoning, 16, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glöckner, A., Betsch, T., & Shindler, N. (2010). Coherence shifts in probabilistic inference tasks. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23, 439–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glöckner, A., Hilbig, B. E., & Jekel, M. (2014). What is adaptive about adaptive decision making? A parallel constraint satisfaction account. Cognition, 133, 641–666.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gluck, M. A., & Bower, G. H. (1988). Evaluating an adaptive network model of human learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(2), 166–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic. Psychological Review, 109, 75–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, W. M., & Hogarth, R. M. (1997). Judgment and decision research: Some historical context. In W. M. Goldstein, & R. M. Hogarth (Hrsg.), Research on judgment and decision making: Currents, connections, and controversies (S. 3–65). New York, NY US: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greifeneder, R., Bless, H., & Pham, M. T. (2011). When do people rely on affective and cognitive feelings in judgment? A review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 107–141. doi:10.1177/1088868310367640.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, B. S., Snitz, B. E., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12, 19–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hagmayer, Y. (2010). Investigating causal intuitions. In A. Glöckner, & C. Witteman (Hrsg.), Foundations for tracing intuition: Challenges and methods (S. 160–178). New York, NY, US: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, U., Prat-Sala, M., Pothos, E. M., & Brumby, D. P. (2010). Exemplar similarity and rule application. Cognition, 114, 1–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, G. C. N. (1988). Criminal behavior as a function of clinical and actuarial variables in a sexual offender population. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 773–775.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, K. R. (1955). Probabilistic functioning and the clinical method. Psychological Review, 62, 255–262.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, K. R., Hursch, C. J., & Todd, F. J. (1964). Analyzing the components of clinical inference. Psychological Review, 71(6), 438–456.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, P. J. (1997). Rationality in economics. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 105, 247–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardman, D. (2009). Judgment and decision making: Psychological perspectives. Blackwell Publishing: Malden, Leicester, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R., & Dawes, R. M. (2001). Rational choice in an uncertain world: The psychology of judgment and decision making. Thousand Oaks, CA US: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausmann, & Läge, D. (2008). Sequential evidence accumulation in decision making: The individual desired level of confidence can explain the extent of information acquisition. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 229–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausmann, D., Läge, D., Pohl, R. F., & Bröder, A. (2007). Testing quickEst: No evidence for the quick-estimation heuristic. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 446–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helversen, B. von, & Rieskamp, J. (2008). The mapping model: A cognitive theory of quantitative estimation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 73–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helversen, B. von, Herzog, S. M., & Rieskamp, J. (2014). Haunted by a doppelgänger: Irrelevant facial similarity affects rule-based judgments. Experimental Psychology, 61, 12–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertwig, R., & Gigerenzer, G. (1999). The conjunction fallacy revisited: How intelligent inferences look like reasoning errors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 275–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., & Erev, I. (2004). Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in Risky Choice. Psychological Science, 15, 534–539.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hertwig, R., Benz, B., & Krauss, S. (2008a). The conjunction fallacy and the many meanings of and. Cognition, 108, 740–753.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hertwig, R., Herzog, S. M., Schooler, L. J., & Reimer, T. (2008b). Fluency Heuristic: A model of how the mind exploits a by-product of information retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, und Cognition, 34, 1191–1206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog, S. M., & Hertwig, R. (2013). The ecological validity of fluency. In C. Unkelbach, & R. Greifeneder (Hrsg.), The experience of thinking: How feelings from mental processes influence cognition and behavior (S. 190–219). London: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilbig, B. E. (2008). One-reason decision making in risky choice? A closer look at the priority heuristic. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 457–462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilbig, B. E. (2010). Reconsidering „evidence“ for fast-and-frugal heuristics. Psychonomic Bulletin und Review, 17, 923–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilbig, B. E., & Glöckner, A. (2011). Yes, they can! Appropriate weighting of small probabilities as a function of information acquisition. Acta Psychologica, 138, 390–396.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hilbig, B. E., & Moshagen, M. (2014). Generalized outcome-based strategy classification: Comparing deterministic and probabilistic choice models. Psychonomic Bulletin und Review, 21, 1431–1443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilbig, B. E., & Pohl, R. F. (2008). Recognizing users of the recognition heuristic. Experimental Psychology, 55, 394–401.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 1296–1305. doi:10.1037/a0016565.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hilbig, B. E., & Richter, T. (2011). Homo heuristicus outnumbered: Comment on Gigerenzer and Brighton (2009). Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 187–196.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, und Cognition, 36, 123–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, und Cognition, 37, 827–839.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilbig, B. E., Erdfelder, E., & Pohl, R. F. (2012). A matter of time: Antecedents of one-reason decision making based on recognition. Acta Psychologica, 141, 9–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, P. J. (1960). The paramorphic representation of clinical judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 57, 116–131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, J. A., Helversen, B. von, & Rieskamp, J. (2014). Pillars of judgment: How memory abilities affect performance in rule-based and exemplar-based judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 2242–2261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffrage, U., & Gigerenzer, G. (1998). Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences. Academic Medicine, 73, 538–540.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, R. M. (2001). Educating intuition. Chicago, IL US: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, R. M., & Karelaia, N. (2007). Heuristic and linear models of judgment: Matching rules and environments. Psychological Review, 114, 733–758.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hohleiter, V. (2014). Fährunglück vor Südkorea – Taucher bergen mehr als 100 Leichen aus gesunkener Fähre. Tagesspiegel. http://www.tagesspiegel.de/weltspiegel/faehrunglueck-vor-suedkorea-taucher-bergen-mehr-als-100-leichen-aus-gesunkener-faehre/9786464.html. Zugegriffen: 22. April 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsee, C. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 247–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 90–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, O. (1980). The influence of some task variables on cognitive operations in an information-processing decision model. Acta Psychologica, 45, 187–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, O. (1982). Entscheiden als Problemlösen. Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahn, G., Renkewitz, F., & Kunze, S. (2007). Heuristics in multi-attribute decision making: Effects of representation format. In D. S. McNamara, & G. Trafton (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (S. 383–388). Mawah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, N. E. (1967). An introduction to Bernoullian utility theory: I. Utility functions. The Swedish Journal of Economics, 69, 163–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jerger, J. (1992). Das St. Petersburg-Paradoxon. WiSt-Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Studium. (S. 407–410).

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, E. J., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Do defaults save lives? Science, 302(5649), 1338–1339.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, E. J., & Payne, J. W. (1985). Effort and accuracy in choice. Management Science, 31, 395–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juslin, P., & Persson, M. (2002). PROBabilities from EXemplars (PROBEX): A „lazy“ algorithm for probabilistic inference from generic knowledge. Cognitive Science, 26(5), 563–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juslin, P., Olsson, H., & Olsson, A.-C. (2003). Exemplar effects in categorization and multiple-cue judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 133–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2004). Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In M. Augier, & J. G. March (Hrsg.), Models of a man: Essays in memory of Herbert A. Simon (S. 411–432). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972a). On prediction and judgment. ORI Research Monographs, 12, 430–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972b). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1996). On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychological Review, 103, 582–591. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.582.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 1325–1348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status-quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karelaia, N., & Hogarth, R. M. (2008). Determinants of linear judgment: A meta-analysis of lens model studies. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 404–426. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson, L., Juslin, P., & Olsson, H. (2008). Exemplar-based inference in multi-attribute decision making: Contingent, not automatic, strategy shifts? Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 244–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, E., Reips, U.-D., & Wittmann, W. (2013). A critical meta-analysis of lens model studies in human judgment and decision-making. PLoS ONE, 8(12), e83528.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Khader, P. H., Pachur, T., Meier, S., Bien, S., Jost, K., & Rösler, F. (2011). Memory-based decision-making with heuristics: Evidence for a controlled activation of memory representations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 3540–3554.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Khader, P. H., Pachur, T., & Jost, K. (2013). Automatic activation of attribute knowledge in heuristic inference from memory. Psychonomic Bulletin und Review, 20, 372–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klayman, J. (1988). Cue discovery in probabilistic environments: Uncertainty and experimentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(2), 317–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, G. (2008). Naturalistic decision making. Human Factors, 50, 456–460.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Knowlton, B. J., Squire, L. R., & Gluck, M. A. (1994). Probabilistic classification learning in amnesia. Learning und Memory, 1, 106–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, J. J. (1996). The base rate fallacy reconsidered: Descriptive, normative, and methodological challenges. Behavioral und Brain Sciences, 19, 1–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koop, G. J., & Johnson, J. G. (2013). The response dynamics of preferential choice. Cognitive Psychology, 67, 151–185.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krajbich, I., & Rangel, A. (2011). Multialternative drift-diffusion model predicts the relationship between visual fixations and choice in value-based decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 13852–13857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajbich, I., Armel, C., & Rangel, A. (2010). Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice. Nature Neuroscience, 13, 1292–1298.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lagnado, D. A., & Sloman, S. (2004). The advantage of timely intervention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(4), 856–876.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. D., & Cummins, T. D. (2004). Evidence accumulation in decision making: Unifying the „take the best“ and the „rational“ models. Psychonomic Bulletin und Review, 11, 343–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (1971). Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89(1), 46–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Layman, M., & Combs, B. (1978). Judged frequency of lethal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 551–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • List, J. A. (2002). Preference reversals of a different kind: The „more is less“ phenomenon. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1636–1643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, J. (1997). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. London: Penguin Classics. 1690, revised edition

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1986). Disappointment and dynamic consistency in choice under uncertainty. Review of Economic Studies, 53, 271–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1987). Testing for regret and disappointment in choice under uncertainty. The Economic Journal, 97, 118–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1998). Testing different stochastic specifications of Risky Choice. Economica, 65, 581–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomes, G., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1991). Observing violations of transitivity by experimental methods. Econometrica, 59, 425–439. doi:10.2307/2938263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCrimmon, K. R., & Larsson, S. (1979). Utility theory: Axioms versus ‘paradoxes. In M. Allais, & O. Hagen (Hrsg.), Expected utility and the Allais paradox (S. 333–409). Dordrecht: NL: Reidel Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Martignon, L., & Hoffrage, U. (2002). Fast, frugal, and fit: Simple heuristics for paired comparison. Theory and Decision, 52, 29–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mata, R., Schooler, L. J., & Rieskamp, J. (2007). The aging decision maker: Cognitive aging and the adaptive selection of decision strategies. Psychology and Aging, 22(4), 796–810.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, A. G. R., & Bolger, F. (1994). The calibration of subjective probability: Theories and models 1980–94. In G. Wright, & P. Ayton (Hrsg.), Subjective probability (S. 453–482). Oxford, England: John Wiley und Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence. Minneapolis, MN, US: University of Minnesota Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mellers, B. A., & Biagini, K. (1994). Similarity and choice. Psychological Review, 101, 505–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellers, B. A., Schwartz, A., Ho, K., & Ritov, I. (1997). Decision affect theory: Emotional reactions to the outcomes of risky options. Psychological Science, 8, 423–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellers, B., Hertwig, R., & Kahneman, D. (2001). Do frequency representations eliminate conjunction effects? An exercise in adversarial collaboration. Psychological Science, 12, 269–275.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Messer, W. S., & Griggs, R. A. (1993). Another look at Linda. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 193–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P. M. (1971). Do labels mislead? A multiple cue study, within the framework of brunswik’s probabilistic functionalism. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 480–500. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(71)90029-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moyer, R. S., & Bayer, R. H. (1976). Mental comparison and the symbolic distance effect. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 228–246. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(76)90025-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muchinsky, P. M., & Dudycha, A. L. (1975). Human inference behavior in abstract and meaningful environments. Organizational Behavior und Human Performance, 13(3), 377–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mussweiler, T., Englich, B., & Strack, F. (2004). Anchoring effect. In Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement and memory (S. 183–200). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, J. von, & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, B. R. (2005). Re-visions of rationality? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 11–15. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.11.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Newell, B. R., & Fernandez, D. (2006). On the binary quality of recognition and the inconsequentially of further knowledge: Two critical tests of the recognition heuristic. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 333–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell, B. R., & Shanks, D. R. (2003). Take the best or look at the rest? Factors influencing „one-reason“ decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 53–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Newell, B. R., Lagnado, D. A., & Shanks, D. R. (2007a). Straight choices: The psychology of decision making. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, B. R., Lagnado, D. A., & Shanks, D. R. (2007b). Challenging the role of implicit processes in probabilistic category learning. Psychonomic Bulletin und Review, 14, 505–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onken, J., Hastie, R., & Revelle, W. (1985). Individual differences in the use of simplification strategies in a complex decision-making task. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 11(1), 14–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer, D. M. (2003). Not so fast! (and not so frugal!): Rethinking the recognition heuristic. Cognition, 90, B1–B9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oskarsson, A. T., Van Boven, L., McClelland, G. H., & Hastie, R. (2009). What’s next? Judging sequences of binary events. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 262–285.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Over, D. (2004). Rationality and the normative/descriptive distinction. In D. J. Koehler, & N. Harvey (Hrsg.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (S. 3–18). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pachur, T., & Bröder, A. (2013). Judgment: a cognitive processing perspective. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Cognitive Science, 4(6), 665–681. doi:10.1002/wcs.1259.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, and Cognition, 32, 983–1002. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.32.5.983.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pachur, T., Bröder, A., & Marewski, J. (2008). The recognition heuristic in memory-based inference: Is recognition a non-compensatory cue? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21, 183–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J. W. (1982). Contingent decision behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 382–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1988). Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 534–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, N., & Hall, J. A. (2014). An analysis of humor orientation on Facebook: A lens model approach. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 27, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, M., & Rieskamp, J. (2009). Inferences from memory: Strategy- and exemplar-based judgment models compared. Acta Psychologica, 130(1), 25–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. New York, NY, US: W W Norton und Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Platzer, C., & Bröder, A. (2012). Most people do not ignore salient invalid cues in memory-based decisions. Psychonomic Bulletin und Review, 19(4), 654–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Platzer, C., & Bröder, A. (2013). When the Rule is Ruled Out: Exemplars and Rules in Decisions from Memory. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(5), 429–441. doi:10.1002/bdm.1776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Platzer, C., Bröder, A., & Heck, D. W. (2014). Deciding with the eye: How the visually manipulated accessibility of information in memory influences decision behavior. Memory & Cognition, 42(4), 595–608. doi:10.3758/s13421-013-0380-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pleskac, T. J. (2007). A signal detection analysis of the recognition heuristic. Psychonomic Bulletin und Review, 14, 379–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, R. F. (Hrsg.). (2004a). Cognitive illusions: A handbook of fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement, and memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, R. F. (2004b). Hindsight bias. In R. F. Pohl (Hrsg.), Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement and memory (S. 364–378). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, R. F. (2006). Empirical tests of the recognition heuristic. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 251–271. doi:10.1002/bdm.522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, R. F. (2007). Ways to assess hindsight bias. Social Cognition, 25, 14–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, R. F., & Hilbig, B. E. (2012). The role of subjective linear orders in probabilistic inferences. Psychonomic Bulletin und Review, 19, 1178–1186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rakow, T., & Newell, B. R. (2010). Degrees of uncertainty: An overview and framework for future research on experience-based choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reber, R. (2004). Availability. In R. F. Pohl (Hrsg.), Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement and memory (S. 147–166). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reber, R., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal, 8, 338–342. doi:10.1006/ccog.1999.0386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regenwetter, M., Dana, J., & Davis-Stober, C. P. (2011). Transitivity of preferences. Psychological Review, 118(1), 42–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Renkewitz, F., & Jahn, G. (2012). Memory indexing: A novel method for tracing memory processes in complex cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1622–1639.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Richter, T., & Späth, P. (2006). Recognition is used as one cue among others in judgment and decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 150–162.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rieskamp, J. (2008). The probabilistic nature of preferential choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1446–1465. doi:10.1037/a0013646.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rieskamp, J., & Hoffrage, U. (2008). Inferences under time pressure: How opportunity costs affect strategy selection. Acta Psychologica, 127, 258–276.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rieskamp, J., & Otto, P. E. (2006). SSL: A theory of how people learn to select strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 207–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, J. E. (2011). Eye fixations as a process trace. In M. Schulte-Mecklenbeck, A. Kühberger, & R. Ranyard (Hrsg.), A handbook of process tracing methods for decision research: A critical review and user’s guide (S. 43–64). New York, NY, US: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, L. J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. Oxford, England: John Wiley und Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheibehenne, B., Rieskamp, J., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2013). Testing adaptive toolbox models: A Bayesian hierarchical approach. Psychological Review, 120, 39–64. doi:10.1037/a0030777.supp.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1982). The expected utility model: Its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. Journal of Economic Literature, 20, 529–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schooler, L. J., & Hertwig, R. (2005). How forgetting aids heuristic inference. Psychological Review, 112, 610–628. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.112.3.610.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Kühberger, A., & Ranyard, R. (Hrsg.). (2011). A handbook of process tracing methods for decision research: A critical review and user’s guide. New York, NY, US: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 195–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sedlmeier, P., & Renkewitz, F. (2013). Forschungsmethoden und Statistik für Psychologen und Sozialwissenschaftler. München: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sedlmeier, P., Hertwig, R., & Gigerenzer, G. (1998). Are judgments of the positional frequencies of letters systematically biased due to availability? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 754–770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafir, E., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49, 11–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man; social and rational. Oxford England: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 1–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 158–174. doi:10.1086/209205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Söllner, A., Bröder, A., & Hilbig, B. E. (2013). Deliberation versus automaticity in decision making: Which presentation format features facilitate automatic decision making? Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 278–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speekenbrink, M., & Shanks, D. R. (2013). Decision making. In D. Reisberg (Hrsg.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology (S. 682–703). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E. (2010). Decision making and rationality in the modern world. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645–726. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00003435.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Starmer, C. (2000). Developments in non-expected Utility Theory: The hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economic Literature, 38, 332–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1991). Does the random-lottery incentive system elicit true preferences? An experimental investigation. American Economic Review, 81, 971–978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, E. (1996). Without good reason. The rationality debate in philosophy and cognitive science. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 437–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svenson, O. (1979). Process descriptions of decision making. Organizational Behavior und Human Performance, 23, 86–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teigen, K. H. (2004). Judgements by representativeness. In R. F. Pohl (Hrsg.), Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement and memory (S. 165–182). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Wie man kluge Entscheidungen anstößt. Berlin: Econ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorngate, W. (1980). Efficient decision heuristics. Behavioral Science, 25(3), 219–225. doi:10.1002/bs.3830250306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todd, P. M., Gigerenzer, G., & The ABC Research Group (2012). Ecological rationality: Intelligence in the world. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, L. R. (1964). A suggested alternative formulation in the developments by Hursch, Hammond, and Hursch, and by Hammond, Hursch, and Todd. Psychological Review, 71(6), 528–530.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. (1969). Intransitivity of preferences. Psychological Review, 76, 31–48. doi:10.1037/h0026750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79(4), 281–299. doi:10.1037/h0032955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982). Evidential impact of base rates. In D. Kahneman, & P. Slovic Tversky et al. (Hrsg.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (S. 153–160). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., Sattath, S., & Slovic, P. (1988). Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review, 95(3), 371–384. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.3.371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unkelbach, C., & Greifeneder, R. (Hrsg.). (2013). The experience of thinking: How feelings from mental processes influence cognition and behavior. New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villejoubert, G., & Mandel, D. R. (2002). The inverse fallacy: An account of deviations from Bayes’s theorem and the additivity principle. Memory und Cognition, 30, 171–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visschers, V. H. M., Meertens, R. M., Passchier, W. W. F., & Vries, N. N. K. de (2009). Probability information in risk communication: A review of the research literature. Risk Analysis, 29, 267–287.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vlaev, I., & Chater, N. (2006). Game relativity: How context influences strategic decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 131–149.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wänke, M., Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (1995). The availability heuristic revisited: Experienced ease of retrieval in mundane frequency estimates. Acta Psychologica, 89, 83–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, E. U., & Johnson, E. J. (2009). Mindful judgment and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 53–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, T. D., Houston, C. E., Etling, K. M., & Brekke, N. (1996). A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 387–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, P. (1974). The harassed decision maker: Time pressures, distractions, and the use of evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 555–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lehrstuhl für Allgemeine Psychologie, Universität Mannheim, Schloss, Ehrenhof-Ost, 68131, Mannheim, Deutschland

    Prof. Dr. Arndt Bröder

  2. Kognitive Psychologie, Universität Koblenz-Landau, Fortstraße 7, 76829, Landau, Deutschland

    Prof. Benjamin E. Hilbig PhD

Authors
  1. Prof. Dr. Arndt Bröder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Prof. Benjamin E. Hilbig PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arndt Bröder .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Psychologie, RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany

    Jochen Müsseler

  2. UMIT – Private Universität für Gesundheitswissenschaften, Medizinische Informatik und Technik, Institut für Psychologie, Hall in Tirol, Austria

    Martina Rieger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bröder, A., Hilbig, B.E. (2017). Urteilen und Entscheiden. In: Müsseler, J., Rieger, M. (eds) Allgemeine Psychologie. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-53898-8_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-53898-8_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-53897-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-53898-8

  • eBook Packages: Psychology (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation