When making inferences, people are often confronted with situations with incomplete information. Previous research has led to a mixed picture about how people react to missing information. Options include ignoring missing information, treating it as either positive or negative, using the average of past observations for replacement, or using the most frequent observation of the available information as a placeholder. The accuracy of these inference mechanisms depends on characteristics of the environment. When missing information is uniformly distributed, it is most accurate to treat it as the average, whereas when it is negatively correlated with the criterion to be judged, treating missing information as if it were negative is most accurate. Whether people treat missing information adaptively according to the environment was tested in two studies. The results show that participants were sensitive to how missing information was distributed in an environment and most frequently selected the mechanism that was most adaptive. From these results the authors conclude that reacting to missing information in different ways is an adaptive response to environmental characteristics.
AndersonJ. R. (1991). Is human cognition adaptive?.Behavioral and Brain Sciences14, 471–484.
2.
BöckenholtU.HynanL. (1994). Caveats on a process-tracing measure and a remedy.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making7, 103–118.
3.
BröderA. (2000). Assessing the empirical validity of the “take-the-best” heuristic as a model of human probabilistic inference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition26, 1332–1346.
4.
BröderA. (2003). Decision making with the “adaptive toolbox”: Influence of environmental structure, intelligence, and working memory load.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition29, 611–625.
5.
BröderA.SchifferS. (2003). Take the best versus simultaneous feature matching: Probabilistic inferences from memory and effects of representation format.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General132, 277–293.
6.
BrunswikE. (1943). Organismic achievement and environmental probability.Psychological Review50, 255–272.
7.
BusemeyerJ. R.MyungI. J. (1992). An adaptive approach to human decision making: Learning theory, decision theory, and human performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General121, 177–194.
ChengP. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory.Psychological Review104, 367–405.
10.
DieckmannA.RieskampJ. (2007). The influence of information redundancy on probabilistic inferences.Memory & Cognition35, 1801–1813.
11.
GanzachY.KrantzD. H. (1990). The psychology of moderate prediction I: Experience with multiple determination.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes47, 177–204.
12.
Garcia-RetameroR.DieckmannA. (2006). A critical review of the fast and frugal heuristics approach.Revista Latinoamericana de Psicologia38, 509–522.
13.
Garcia-RetameroR.HoffrageU.DieckmannA. (2007a). When one cue is not enough: Combining fast and frugal heuristics with compound cue processing.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology60, 1197–1215.
14.
Garcia-RetameroR.HoffrageU.DieckmannA.RamosM. (2007b). Compound cue processing within the fast and frugal heuristic approach in non-linearly separable environments.Learning & Motivation38, 16–34.
15.
Garcia-RetameroR.RieskampJ. (2008). Adaptive mechanisms for treating missing information: A simulation study.The Psychological Record58, 547–568.
16.
Garcia-RetameroR.TakezawaM.GigerenzerG. (2008). Group communication and decision-making strategies.Psicothema20, 753–759.
17.
Garcia-Retamero, R., Takezawa, M., & Gigerenzer, G. (in press). Does imitation benefit cue order learning? Experimental Psychology.
18.
GigerenzerG.GoldsteinD. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality.Psychological Review103, 650–669.
19.
GigerenzerG.GoldsteinD. G. (1999). Betting on one good reason: The take the best heuristic.Simple heuristics that make us smartGigerenzerG.ToddP. M. the ABC Research Group New York: Oxford University Press75–95.
20.
GigerenzerG.HoffrageU.KleinböltingH. (1991). Probabilistic mental models: A Brunswikian theory of confidence.Psychological Review98, 506–528.
21.
GluckM. A.BowerG. H. (1988). From conditioning to category learning: An adaptive network model.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General117, 227–247.
22.
GoldbergD. E. (1989). Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and machine learningReading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
23.
GreenD. M.SwetsJ. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysicsOxford, UK: Wiley.
24.
GreenhouseS. W.GeisserS. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data.Psychometrika24, 95–112.
25.
HogarthR. H.KarelaiaN. (2005). Ignoring information in binary choice with continuous variables: When is less “more”?.Journal of Mathematical Psychology49, 115–124.
26.
HogarthR. H.KarelaiaN. (2006). Take-the-best and other simple strategies: Why and when they work “well” in binary choice.Theory and Decision61, 205–249.
27.
HogarthR. H.KarelaiaN. (2007). Heuristic and linear models of judgment: Matching rules and environments.Psychological Review114, 733–758.
28.
HuberJ.McCannJ. (1982). The impact of inferential beliefs on product evaluations.Journal of Marketing Research19, 324–333.
29.
JaccardJ.WoodG. (1988). The effects of incomplete information on the formation of attitudes toward behavioral alternatives.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology54, 580–591.
30.
JagacinskiC. M. (1991). Personnel decision making: The impact of missing information.Journal of Applied Psychology76, 19–30.
31.
JohnsonR. D. (1987). Making judgments when information is missing: Inferences, biases, and framing effects.Acta Psychologica66, 69–82.
32.
JohnsonR. D. (1989). Making decisions with incomplete information: The first complete test of the inference model.SrullT. K.Advances in consumer researchProvo, UT: Association for Consumer Research16, 522–528.
33.
JohnsonR. D.LevinI. P. (1985). More than meets the eye: The effect of missing information on purchase evaluations.Journal of Consumer Research12, 169–177.
34.
KardesF. R.PosavacS. S.CronleyM. L.HerrP. M. (2008). Consumer inference.Handbook of consumer psychologyHaugtvedtC. P.HerrP. M.KardesF.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc165–192.
35.
KelleyH. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution.American Psychologist28, 107–128.
36.
LevinI. P.JohnsonR. D.FaraoneS. V. (1984). Information integration in price–quality tradeoffs: The effect of missing information.Memory & Cognition12, 96–102.
37.
LevinI. P.JohnsonR. D.RusoC. P.DeldinP. J. (1985). Framing effects in judgment tasks with varying amounts of information.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes36, 362–377.
38.
LevinI. P.MosellM. K.LamkaC. M.SavageB. E.GrayM. J. (1977). Measurement of psychological factors and their role in travel behavior.Transportation Research Record649, 1–7.
39.
LimJ. S.KimJ. (1992). Impact of consumers’ confidence in judgements about missing information on product evaluations.Journal of Business Research25, 215–229.
40.
LimJ. S.OlshavskyR. W.KimJ. (1988). The impact of inferences on product evaluations: Replication and extension.Journal of Marketing Research25, 308–316.
41.
MartignonL.HoffrageU. (2002). Fast, frugal, and fit: Simple heuristics for paired comparison.Theory & Decision52, 29–71.
42.
MeyerR. J. (1981). A model of multiattribute judgments under attribute uncertainty and information constraint.Journal of Marketing Research18, 428–441.
43.
NewellB. R.ShanksD. R. (2003). Take the best or look at the rest? Factors influencing “one-reason” decision making.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition29, 53–65.
44.
NewellB. R.WestonN. J.ShanksD. R. (2003). Empirical tests of a fast-and-frugal heuristic: Not everyone “takes-the-best.”.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes91, 82–96.
45.
NosofskyR. M.KruschkeJ. K.McKinleyS. C. (1992). Combining exemplar-based category representations and connectionist learning rules.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition18, 221–233.
46.
PayneJ. W. (1976). Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis.Organizational Behavior & Human Performance16, 366–387.
47.
PayneJ. W.BettmanJ. R.JohnsonE. J. (1988). Adaptive strategy selection in decision making.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition14, 534–552.
48.
PayneJ. W.BettmanJ. R.JohnsonE. J. (1993). The adaptive decision makerNew York: Cambridge University Press.
49.
RieskampJ. (2006a). Perspectives of probabilistic inference: Reinforcement and adaptive network models compared.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition32, 1355–1370.
50.
RieskampJ. (2006b). Positive and negative recency effects in retirement savings decisions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied12, 233–250.
51.
RieskampJ.BusemeyerJ. R.LaineT. (2003). How do people learn to allocate resources? Comparing two learning theories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition29, 1066–1081.
52.
RieskampJ.HoffrageU. (1999). When do people use simple heuristics, and how can we tell?.Simple heuristics that make us smartGigerenzerG.ToddP. M. the ABC Research Group New York: Oxford University Press141–167.
53.
RieskampJ.HoffrageU. (2008). Inferences under time pressure: How opportunity costs affect strategy selection.Acta Psychologica127, 258–276.
54.
RieskampJ.OttoP. E. (2006). SSL: A theory of how people learn to select strategies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General135, 207–236.
55.
SanbonmatsuD. M.KardesF. R.HerrP. M. (1992). The role of prior knowledge and missing information in multiattribute evaluation.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes51, 76–91.
56.
SimmonsC. J.LynchJ. G. (1991). Inference effects without inference making? Effects of missing information on discounting and use of presented information.Journal of Consumer Research17, 477–491.
57.
SlovicP.MacPhillamyD. (1974). Dimensional commensurability and cue utilization in comparative judgment.Organizational Behavior & Human Performance11, 172–194.
58.
von HelversenB.RieskampJ. (2008). The mapping model: A cognitive theory of quantitative estimation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General137, 73–96.
59.
WallstenT. S. (1968). Failure of predictions from subjectively expected utility theory in a Bayesian decision task.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes3, 239–252.
60.
WhiteC. M.KoehlerD. J. (2004). Missing information in multiple-cue probability learning.Memory & Cognition32, 1007–1018.
61.
YamagishiT.HillC. T. (1981). Adding versus averaging models revisited: A test of a path-analytic integration model.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology41, 13–25.
62.
YamagishiT.HillC. T. (1983). Initial impression versus missing information as explanation of the set-size effect.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology44, 942–951.
63.
YatesJ. F.JagacinskiC. M.FaberM. D. (1978). Evaluation of partially described multi-attribute options.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance21, 240–251.
64.
ZhangS.MarkmanA. B. (1998). Overcoming the early entrant advantage: The role of alignable and nonalignable differences.Journal of Marketing Research35, 413–426.
65.
ZhangS.MarkmanA. B. (2001). Processing product unique features: Alignability and involvement in preference construction.Journal of Consumer Psychology11, 13–27.
