1 / 21

What is the role of recognition in decision making?

What is the role of recognition in decision making?. Ben Newell University College London & Centre for Economic Learning & Social Evolution Acknowledgements: David Shanks, Nicola Weston, Tim Rakow Funding: ESRC, Leverhulme Trust. Role of recognition in a cue-learning task.

griffith-santana
Télécharger la présentation

What is the role of recognition in decision making?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. What is the role of recognition in decision making? Ben Newell University College London & Centre for Economic Learning & Social Evolution Acknowledgements: David Shanks, Nicola Weston, Tim Rakow Funding: ESRC, Leverhulme Trust

  2. Role of recognition in a cue-learning task • Previous work examined empirical evidence for building blocks of fast & frugal heuristics (e.g., search, stopping, decision rules) in menu-based tasks • Natural extension – examine evidence for fundamental ‘building block’ – the use of recognition

  3. What do we mean by recognition? • Distinction between the truly novel and the previously experienced • E.g. nonwords – “prache”, “elbonics” • Repetition of nonwords makes them recognisable • How much ‘weight’ is placed on simple recognition?

  4. RH = Recognition High (recognition best predictor of company performance) RL = Recognition Low (recognition poorest predictor of company performance) NR = No Recognition (Free advisor informational equivalent of RH)

  5. Choices in accord with recognition Predictions: “special” RH = RL = 1.0; “consistent” RH > RL

  6. Advice Purchase Predictions: “special” RH = RL (=0) < NR; “consistent” NR = RH < RL

  7. Compensatory use of cues Evidence for compensatory cue use in all conditions, most in RL

  8. Conclusions • Recognition information not ascribed “special status” in cue learning task • Treated as ‘just another cue’ in the environment (cf.,PROBEX Juslin & Persson 2002) • What about inferences from memory – do these rely on a ‘different sort of recognition’?

  9. Recognition, Availability, Familiarity……. • Powerful influences on inferences from memory • Availability Heuristic (Kahneman & Tversky) • “Overnight Fame” effect (Jacoby) • Recognition Heuristic (Goldstein & Gigerenzer) Availability (ease of recall) No Recognition Recognition Recognition +

  10. Recognition Heuristic • Adaptive, non-compensatory, “all or nothing” use of recognition – “no other information is searched for” • Cities task with football team information • When is such a rule applied? What are the consequences…..?

  11. “Paying for the name…….”

  12. Paying for the name….. • Hoyer & Brown (1990) • 3 brands of peanut butter, • “Aware group”:1 known, 2 unknown brands • 5 trials, opportunity to sample after each choice • Support for use of brand recognition in choice of peanut butter (DVD’s, computers, cars…….??)

  13. Paying for the name….. • Hoyer & Brown (1990) contd…. • Comparison with “No Awareness” group • Significantly more sampling of brands in No Awareness group AND • Awareness/quality-difference manipulation showed: • Reliance on Brand Awareness heuristic led to decreased search and final choice of inferior alternative

  14. “A good name is better than riches” (?) • Borges et al. (1999) – can “ignorance” beat the stock market? • 180 German lay-people recognition of German stocks • 6 month return on DAX 30: Dec 1996 – Jun 1997 • Result replicated in 6 out of 8 tests • Conclusion – ignorance can beat the stock market or big firms do well in strong bull (up) markets?

  15. “A good name is better than riches” (?) • Boyd (2001) – test in a down or ‘bear market’ • 184 US students recognition of 111 companies randomly selected from Standard & Poor’s 500 • 6 month return: June 2000 – December 2000 • No evidence to support use of recognition heuristic in a ‘bear’ market • Borges et al result a ‘big firm’ effect?

  16. “A good name is better than riches” (?) • Rakow (2002) – further test in a strong market • 53 UK students recognition of 30 companies in Italian Mib 30 • 8 week return: October – December 2002 • Compared recognition portfolios, anti-recognition portfolios and expert portfolio with market index • Only 7 out of 53 recognition portfolios outperformed market index • How robust is recognition heuristic as an investment tool?

  17. When will recognition be accurate…? • It depends on the domain….. f(n) = 2(n / N) (N - n / N -1) + (N – n / N) (N – n – 1 / N – 1) ½ + (n / N) (n – 1 / N – 1) f(n) = proportion correct inferences  = recognition validity  =knowledge validity N = reference class of objects n = recognized objects (fast and frugal?)

  18. Deliberate or automatic? • Automatic ‘feeling of familiarity’ + deliberate application of heuristic? • “I recognise it so I’ll choose it” – deliberate selection and use of a heuristic from the toolbox? (cf., Kahneman & Frederick, 2002) • Recognition + “relevance check”. Enron?

  19. Conclusions • Cue learning: recognition treated like other cues in the environment • Consumer research:Exploitation of reliance on recognition • Stock market investment: ‘big firm’ rather than recognition effect – how generalisable?

  20. Where to next? • Further tests of use of recognition in memory-based inference • Cost/benefit effects on use of recognition • Discussion of adaptive/maladaptive use of recognition • Further specification of the domains in which the ‘recognition heuristic’ applies

More Related