An ecological approach to the study of cognitive biases as demonstrations of bounded rationality

Abstract

The evolution of concepts of bounded rationality is analysed. Heuristics and cognitive biases are defined. The view on cognitive biases from the perspective of cognitive and ecological approaches is considered. The substantive characteristics of the ecological rationality are comprehensively examined. Structures of environments, building blocks of heuristic strategies, adaptive toolbox and its functions are studied. Currently discovered heuristics are described. The adaptability of cognitive mechanisms to different decision-making environments is investigated. Directions for further research are outlined.

Author Biography

Konstantin V. Poznyak, Belarusian State University, 4 Niezaliežnasci Avenue, Minsk 220030, Belarus

postgraduate student at the department of social and organisational psychology, faculty of philosophy and social sciences

References

  1. Belle N, Cantarelli P, Belardinelli P. Prospect theory goes public: experimental evidence on cognitive biases in public policy and management decisions. Public Administration Review. 2018;78(6):828–840. DOI: 10.1111/puar.12960.
  2. Belekhova GV. Economic behavior of the population: understanding the category. Problems of Territory’s Development. 2018;5(97):68–83. Russian. DOI: 10.15838/ptd.2018.5.97.5.
  3. Haselton MG, Bryant GA, Wilkie A, Frederick DA, Galperin A, Frankenhuis WE. Adaptive rationality: an evolutionary perspective on cognitive bias. Social Cognition. 2009;27(5):733–763. DOI: 10.1521/soco.2009.27.5.733.
  4. Abatecola G, Caputo A, Cristofaro M. Reviewing cognitive distortions in managerial decision making: toward an integrative co-evolutionary framework. Journal of Management Development. 2018;5(37):409–424. DOI: 10.1108/JMD-08-2017-0263.
  5. Viale R. Routledge handbook of bounded rationality. New York: Taylor & Francis Group; 2021. 680 p.
  6. Todd PM, Gigerenzer G. Ecological rationality: intelligence in the world. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012. 608 p.
  7. Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: FSG; 2011. 499 p.
  8. Stanovich KE, West RF. Evolutionary versus instrumental goals: how evolutionary psychology misconceives human rationality. In: Over DE, editor. Evolution and the psychology of thinking: The debate. London: Psychology Press; 2013. p. 171–230. (Series on Current Issues in Thinking and Reasoning).
  9. Arnott D. Cognitive biases and decision support systems development: a design science approach. Information Systems Journal. 2006;16(1):55–78. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2006.00208.x.
  10. Gigerenzer G, Selten R. Bounded rationality: the adaptive toolbox. Massachusetts: The MIT Press; 2001. 394 p.
  11. Lockton D. Cognitive biases, heuristics and decision-making in design for behaviour change. SSRN Electronic Journal [Internet];2012 [cited 2021 February 20]. Available from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2124557.
  12. Kapeliushnikov RI. Behavioral economics: several comments on rationality and irrationality. Russian Journal of Economic Theory. 2018;18(3):359–376. Russian. DOI: 10.31063/2073-6517/2018.15-3.1.
  13. Altman M, editor. Handbook of behavioural economics and smart decision-making. Lypiatt: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2017. 608 p.
  14. Solodukho AS, Fofanova GA. [Elements of economic behaviour of students in the classroom in economic psychology: on the experience of implementing a heuristic approach]. In: Gigin VF, Kurbacheva OV, Barsuk IA, Fofanova GA. Innovatsionnye podkhody i kreativnye komponenty obucheniya sotsial’no-gumanitarnym distsiplinam v vysshei shkole [Innovative approaches and creative components of teaching social and humanitarian disciplines in higher education]. Minsk: Belarusian State University; 2019. p. 95–101. Russian.
  15. Kalenscher T. Decision-making and neuroeconomics. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2014. 17 p. DOI: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0021397.pub2.
  16. Gigerenzer G, Todd PM. Environments that make us smart. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2007;16(3):167–171. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00497.x.
  17. Gigerenzer G. Homo heuristicus: why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science. 2009;1:107–143. DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01006.x.
  18. Hilbig BE. Reconsidering «evidence» for fast-and-frugal heuristics. Psychonomic Bulletin Review. 2010;17:923–930. DOI: 10.3758/PBR.17.6.923.
  19. Gigerenzer G, Edwards A. Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. British Medical Journal. 2003;327:741–744. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.327.7417.741.
  20. Pachur T. Recognition-based inference: when is less more in the real world? Psychonomic Bulletin Review. 2010;17:589–598. DOI: 10.3758/PBR.17.4.589.
  21. Gigerenzer G, Goldstein DG. Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review. 2007;103(4):650–669. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.650.
  22. Gigerenzer G, Goldstein DG. Models of ecological rationality: the recognition heuristic. Psychological Review. 2002;109(1):75–90. DOI: 10.1037//0033-295X.109.1.75.
Published
2022-01-27
Keywords: bounded rationality, heuristics, cognitive biases, ecological rationality, adaptive toolbox, decision-making
How to Cite
Poznyak, K. V. (2022). An ecological approach to the study of cognitive biases as demonstrations of bounded rationality. Journal of the Belarusian State University. Philosophy and Psychology, 1, 92-99. Retrieved from https://journals.bsu.by/index.php/philosophy/article/view/3923
Issue
No 1 (2022): Journal of the Belarusian State University. Philosophy and Psychology
Section
Personality Psychology

Copyright (c) 2022 Journal of the Belarusian State University. Philosophy and Psychology

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

The authors who are published in this journal agree to the following:

  1. The authors retain copyright on the work and provide the journal with the right of first publication of the work on condition of license Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial. 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).
  2. The authors retain the right to enter into certain contractual agreements relating to the non-exclusive distribution of the published version of the work (e.g. post it on the institutional repository, publication in the book), with the reference to its original publication in this journal.
  3. The authors have the right to post their work on the Internet (e.g. on the institutional store or personal website) prior to and during the review process, conducted by the journal, as this may lead to a productive discussion and a large number of references to this work. (See The Effect of Open Access.)