Polymath, and also political scientist, Herbert Simon dared to point out that the amounts of time, information, computation, and other resources required for maximizing utility far exceed what is possible when real people have to make real decisions in the real world. In psychology, there are two main approaches to studying actual human judgment and decision making—the heuristics-and-bias and the fast-and-frugal-heuristics research programs. A distinctive characteristic of the fast-and-frugal-heuristics program is that it specifies formal models of heuristics and attempts to determine when people use them and what performance they achieve. These models rely on a few pieces of information that are processed in computationally simple ways. The information and computation are within human reach, which means that people rely on information they have relatively easy access to and employ simple operations such as summing or comparing numbers. Research in the laboratory and in the wild has found that most people use fast and frugal heuristics most of the time if a decision must be made quickly, information is expensive financially or cognitively to gather, or a single/few attributes of the problem strongly point towards an option. The ways in which people switch between heuristics is studied in the framework of the adaptive toolbox. Work employing computer simulations and mathematical analyses has uncovered conditions under which fast and frugal heuristics achieve higher performance than benchmarks from statistics and machine learning, and vice versa. These conditions constitute the theory of ecological rationality. This theory suggests that fast and frugal heuristics perform better than complex optimization models if the available information is of low quality or scarce, or if there exist dominant options or attributes. The bias-variance decomposition of statistical prediction error, which is explained in layperson’s terms, underpins these claims. Research on fast and frugal heuristics suggests a governance approach not based on nudging, but on boosting citizen competence.
Konstantinos V. Katsikopoulos
The lexicographic decision rule is one of the simplest methods of choosing among decision alternatives. It is based on a simple priority ranking of the attributes available. According to the lexicographic decision rule, a decision alternative is better than another alternative if and only if it is better than the other alternative in the most important attribute on which the two alternatives differ. In other words, the lexicographic decision rule does not allow trade-offs among the various attributes. For example, if quality is considered to be more important than cost, no difference in price can compensate for a difference in quality: The lexicographic decision rule chooses the item with the best quality regardless of the cost. Over the years, the lexicographic decision rule has been compared to various statistical learning methods, including multiple linear regression, support vector machines, decision trees, and random forests. The results show that the lexicographic decision rule can sometimes compete remarkably well with more complex statistical methods, and even outperform them, despite its naively simple structure. These results have stimulated a rich scientific literature on why, and under what conditions, lexicographic decision rules yield accurate decisions. Due to the simplicity of its decision process, its fast execution time, and the robustness of its performance in various decision environments, the lexicographic decision rule is considered to be a plausible model of human decision making. In particular, the lexicographic decision rule is put forward as a model of how the human mind implements bounded rationality to make accurate decisions when information is scarce, time is short, and computational capacity is limited.