I have compiled a body of information here on Heuristics and how they can help to train the mind effectively, and also explain the way the mind works in certain situations. This is only an overview of each heuristic and how it can be applied to solve problems, but it is a starting point for further research. Hopefully it will prove useful in explaining the decision-making process and how people approach problems both in life and work.
Heuristic (pronounced /hjʊˈrɪstɨk/, from the Greek “Εὑρίσκω” for “find” or “discover”) is an adjective for experience-based techniques that help in problem solving, learning and discovery. A heuristic method is particularly used to rapidly come to a solution that is hoped to be close to the best possible answer, or ‘optimal solution’. Heuristics are “rules of thumb”, educated guesses, intuitive judgments, or simply common sense. Heuristics as a noun is another name for heuristic methods. In more precise terms, heuristics stand for strategies using readily accessible, though loosely applicable, information to control problem solving in human beings and machines.
Anchoring and adjustment is a psychological heuristic that influences the way people intuitively assess probabilities. According to this heuristic, people start with an implicitly suggested reference point (the “anchor”) and make adjustments to it to reach their estimate. A person begins with a first approximation (anchor) and then makes adjustments to that number based on additional information.
Example: when asked to guess the percentage of African nations which are members of the United Nations, people who were first asked “Was it more or less than 45%?” guessed lower values than those who had been asked if it was more or less than 65%. The pattern has held in other experiments for a wide variety of different subjects of estimation. Others have suggested that anchoring and adjustment affects other kinds of estimates, like perceptions of fair prices and good deals.
Availability heuristic
Essentially the availability heuristic operates on the notion that “if you can think of it, it must be important.” Media coverage can help fuel a person’s example bias with widespread and extensive coverage of unusual events, such as airline accidents, and less coverage of more routine, less sensational events, such as car accidents. For example, when asked to rate the probability of a variety of causes of death, people tend to rate more “newsworthy” events as more likely because they can more readily recall an example from memory.
One important corollary finding to this heuristic is that people asked to imagine an outcome tend to immediately view it as more likely than people that were not asked to imagine the specific outcome. If group A were asked to imagine a specific outcome and then asked if it were a likely outcome, and group B were asked whether the same specific outcome were likely without being asked to imagine it first, the members of group A tend to view the outcome as more likely than the members of group B, thereby demonstrating the tendency toward using an availability heuristic as a basis for logic.
Representative Heuristic
The Representativeness Heuristic is a rule of thumb wherein people judge the probability or frequency of a hypothesis by considering how much the hypothesis resembles available data as opposed to using a Bayesian calculation. While often very useful in everyday life, it can also result in neglect of relevant base rates and other cognitive biases.
Naïve diversification is a choice heuristic (also known as “diversification heuristic”). Its first demonstration was made by Itamar Simonson in marketing in the context of consumption decisions by individuals. It was subsequently shown in the context of economic and financial decisions. Simonson showed that when people have to make simultaneous choice (e.g. choose now which of six snacks to consume in the next three weeks), they tend to seek more variety (e.g., pick more kinds of snacks) than when they make sequential choices (e.g., choose once a week which of six snacks to consume that week for three weeks). That is, when asked to make several choices at once, people tend to diversify more than when making the same type of decision sequentially.
Escalation of commitment was first described by Barry M. Staw in his 1976 paper, “Knee deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action”. More recently the term Sunk cost fallacy has been used to describe the phenomenon where people justify increased investment in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment, despite new evidence suggesting that the decision was probably wrong. Such investment may include money, time, or — in the case of military strategy — human lives. The phenomenon and the sentiment underlying it are reflected in such proverbial images as Throwing good money after bad and In for a dime, in for a dollar (or In for a penny, in for a pound).
Examples are frequently seen when parties engage in a bidding war; the bidders can end up paying much more than the object is worth to justify the initial expenses associated with bidding (such as research), as well as part of a competitive instinct.
Affect Heuristic
“Affect”, in this context, is simply a feeling—fear, pleasure, humorousness, etc. It is shorter in duration than a mood, occurring rapidly and involuntarily in response to a stimulus. Reading the words “lung cancer” usually generates an affect of dread, while reading the words “mother’s love” usually generates an affect of affection and comfort. For the purposes of the psychological heuristic, affect is often judged on a simple diametric scale of “good” or “bad”.
The theory of affect heuristic is that a human being’s affect can influence their decision-making.
The affect heuristic is of influence in nearly every decision-making arena.
The contagion heuristic is a psychological heuristic leading people to avoid contact with people or objects viewed as “contaminated” by previous contact with someone or something viewed as bad—or, less often, to seek contact with objects that have been in contact with people or things considered good. For example, we tend to view food that has touched the ground as contaminated by the ground, and therefore unfit to eat, or we view a person who has touched a diseased person as likely to carry the disease (regardless of the actual contagiousness of the disease).
The contagion heuristic includes “magical thinking”, such as viewing a sweater worn by Adolf Hitler as bearing his negative essence and capable of transmitting it to another wearer. The perception of essence-transfer extends to rituals to purify items viewed as spiritually contaminated, such as having Mother Theresa wear Hitler’s sweater to counteract his essence.
In psychology, a mental heuristic in which the value of an object is assigned based on the amount of perceived effort that went into producing the object. An example of this would be the comparison of £100 earned, and £100 found. If someone finds £100, they might go spend it on a whim, but if that £100 is part of their pay check, they are not going to waste it.
Another way that effort heuristic can be considered is the amount of effort a person will put into an action depending on the goal. If the goal is of little importance, the amount of effort a person is willing to put into it is going to be lower.
In psychology, a mental heuristic, or rule of thumb in which current behaviour is judged to be correct based on how similar it is to past behaviour and its outcomes. Individuals assume that the circumstances underlying the past behaviour still hold true for the present situation and that the past behaviour thus can be correctly applied to the new situation. It can be applied to various situations that individuals experience in real life when these situations appear similar to previous situations, especially if the individuals are experiencing a high cognitive load. This heuristic is useful in most situations and can be applied to many fields of knowledge including medicine, psychology, sports, marketing, outdoor activities, and consumer choices
A fluency heuristic in psychology is a mental heuristic where, if one out of two objects is processed more fluently, faster, or more smoothly, the mind infers that this object has the higher value with respect to what question is being considered. (Jacoby & Brooks, 1984)
The gaze heuristic is a heuristic employed by people when trying to catch a ball. Experimental studies have shown that people do not act as though they were solving a system of differential equations that describe the forces acting on the ball while it is in the air and then run to the place at which the ball is predicted to hit the ground. Instead, they fixate the ball with their eyes and move so as to keep the angle of the gaze either constant or within a certain range. Moving in such a fashion assures that the ball will hit the catcher.
According to the peak-end rule, we judge our past experiences almost entirely on how they were at their peak (pleasant or unpleasant) and how they ended. Other information is not lost, but it is not used. This includes net pleasantness or unpleasantness and how long the experience lasted.
In one experiment, one group of people were subjected to loud, painful noises. In a second group, subjects were exposed to the same loud, painful noises as the first group, after which were appended somewhat less painful noises. This second group rated the experience of listening to the noises as much less unpleasant than the first group, despite having been subjected to more discomfort than the first group, as they experienced the same initial duration, and then an extended duration of reduced unpleasantness.
The recognition heuristic has been used as a model in the psychology of judgment and decision making and as a heuristic in artificial intelligence. It states:
| “ | If one of two objects is recognized and the other is not, then infer that the recognized object has the higher value with respect to the criterion. | ” |
In human psychology, a mental heuristic in which the mind values something based on how easily it may lose it, especially to competitors.
For example, take a group of boys playing marbles. Each player has at least one of every colour marble except blue. Only one boy has a blue marble. By the scarcity heuristic, that boy and his playmates will value the blue marble more because there is only one, regardless of whether the blue marble is “better” (more aesthetically attractive, or better in the marbles game, for instance).
The similarity heuristic is a lesser-known psychological heuristic pertaining to how people make judgments based on similarity. More specifically, the similarity heuristic is used to account for how people make judgments based on the similarity between current situations and other situations or prototypes of those situations.
At its most basic level, the similarity heuristic is an adaptive strategy. The goal of the similarity heuristic is maximizing productivity through favourable experience while not repeating unfavourable experiences. Decisions based on how favourable or unfavourable the present seems are based on how similar the past was to the current situation.
For example, a person may use the similarity heuristic when deciding on a book purchase. If a novel has a plot similar to that of novels read and enjoyed or the author has a writing style similar to that of favoured authors, the purchasing decision will be positively influenced. A book with similar characteristics to previously pleasurable books is likely to also be enjoyed, causing the person to decide to obtain it.
The simulation heuristic is a psychological heuristic, or simplified mental strategy devised to explain counterfactual thinking and regret.
However, it should not be thought of as the same thing as the availability heuristic. Specifically, the simulation heuristic is defined as “how perceivers tend to substitute ‘normal’ antecedent events for exceptional ones in psychologically ‘undoing’ this specific outcome.”
According to this heuristic, people determine the likelihood of an event based on how easy it is to picture mentally. Partially as a result, people regret more missing outcomes that had been easier to imagine, such as “near misses” instead of when accomplishment had been much further away.
For example, a study was proposed that provided a group of participants with a situation describing two men who were delayed by half an hour in a traffic jam on the way to the airport. Both men were delayed enough that they both missed flights on which they were booked, one of them by half an hour and the second by only five minutes (because his flight had been delayed for 25 minutes). The results showed that a greater number of participants thought that the second man would be more upset then the first man.
Social proof, also known as informational social influence, is a psychological phenomenon that occurs in ambiguous social situations when people are unable to determine the appropriate mode of behaviour. Assuming that surrounding people possess more knowledge about the situation, they will deem the behaviour of others as appropriate or better informed. Since observation of others usually provides only inconclusive information about what behaviour is most profitable, the term ‘informational social influence’ is superior. Social influence in general can lead to conformity of large groups of individuals in either correct or mistaken choices, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as herd behaviour. Although informational social influence at least in part reflects a rational motive to consider the information of others, formal analysis shows that it can cause people to converge too quickly upon a single choice, so that decisions of even large groups of individuals may reflect very little information
According to the take-the-best heuristic, when making a judgment based on multiple criteria, the criteria are tried one at a time according to their cue validity, and a decision is made based on the first criterion which discriminates between the alternatives.
Use of Heuristics in Problem Solving:
Four principles
These steps are derived from the work How to Solve It written by influential mathematician Pólya, who suggests the following steps when solving a mathematical problem:
- First, you have to understand the problem.
- After understanding, then make a plan.
- Carry out the plan.
- Look back on your work. How could it be better?
(This is very similar to the technique known as plan do review improve)
If this technique fails, Pólya advises: “If you can’t solve a problem, then there is an easier problem you can solve: find it.” Or: “If you cannot solve the proposed problem, try to solve first some related problem. Could you imagine a more accessible related problem?”
First principle: Understand the problem
This seems so obvious that it is often not even mentioned, yet students are often stymied in their efforts to solve problems simply because they don’t understand it fully, or even in part. Pólya taught teachers to ask students questions such as:
- Do you understand all the words used in stating the problem?
- What are you asked to find or show?
- Can you restate the problem in your own words?
- Can you think of a picture or a diagram that might help you understand the problem?
- Is there enough information to enable you to find a solution?
- Do you need to ask a question to get the answer?
Second principle: Devise a plan
Pólya mentions that there are many reasonable ways to solve problems. The skill at choosing an appropriate strategy is best learned by solving many problems. You will find choosing a strategy increasingly easy. A partial list of strategies is included:
- Guess and check
- Make an orderly list
- Eliminate possibilities
- Use symmetry
- Consider special cases
- Use direct reasoning
- Solve an equation
Also suggested:
- Look for a pattern
- Draw a picture
- Solve a simpler problem
- Use a model
- Work backward
- Use a formula
- Be creative
- Use your head
Third principle: Carry out the plan
This step is usually easier than devising the plan. In general, all you need is care and patience, given that you have the necessary skills. Persist with the plan that you have chosen. If it continues not to work discard it and choose another. Don’t be misled, this is how mathematics is done, even by professionals.
Fourth principle: Review/extend
Pólya mentions that much can be gained by taking the time to reflect and look back at what you have done, what worked and what didn’t. Doing this will enable you to predict what strategy to use to solve future problems if these relate to the original problem.
Heuristics
The book contains a dictionary-style set of heuristics, many of which have to do with generating a more accessible problem. For example:
| Heuristic | Informal Description | Formal analogue |
| Analogy | Can you find a problem analogous to your problem and solve that? | Map |
| Generalization | Can you find a problem more general than your problem? | Generalization |
| Induction | Can you solve your problem by deriving a generalization from some examples? | Induction |
| Variation of the Problem | Can you vary or change your problem to create a new problem (or set of problems) whose solution(s) will help you solve your original problem? | Search |
| Auxiliary Problem | Can you find a subproblem or side problem whose solution will help you solve your problem? | Sub goal |
| Here is a problem related to yours and solved before | Can you find a problem related to yours that has already been solved and use that to solve your problem? | Pattern recognition Pattern matching Reduction |
| Specialization | Can you find a problem more specialized? | Specialization |
| Decomposing and Recombining | Can you decompose the problem and “recombine its elements in some new manner”? | Divide and conquer |
| Working backward | Can you start with the goal and work backwards to something you already know? | Backward chaining |
| Draw a Figure | Can you draw a picture of the problem? | Diagrammatic Reasoning |
| Auxiliary Elements | Can you add some new element to your problem to get closer to a solution? | Extension |
Shevek Pring 