| dc.contributor.author | Benjamin E. Hilbig | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2010-12-13T14:09:57Z | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-05-20T22:21:13Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2026-05-20T22:21:13Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2010-12-13T14:09:57Z | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://journal.sjdm.org/10/rh5/rh5.pdf | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://digilib.fisipol.ugm.ac.id/repo/handle/15717717/55956 | |
| dc.description.abstract | The recognition heuristic (RH) --- which predicts non-compensatory reliance on recognition in comparative judgments --- has attracted much research and some disagreement, at times. Most studies have dealt with whether or under which conditions the RH is truly used in paired-comparisons. However, even though the RH is a precise descriptive model, there has been less attention concerning the precision of the methods applied to measure RH-use. In the current work, I provide an overview of different measures of RH-use tailored to the paradigm of natural recognition which has emerged as a preferred way of studying the RH. The measures are compared with respect to different criteria --- with particular emphasis on how well they uncover true use of the RH. To this end, both simulations and a re-analysis of empirical data are presented. The results indicate that the adherence rate --- which has been pervasively applied to measure RH-use --- is a severely biased measure. As an alternative, a recently developed formal measurement model emerges as the recommended candidate for assessment of RH-use. | |
| dc.publisher | Cambridge University Press | |
| dc.subject.lcc | Social Sciences; Psychology | |
| dc.title | Precise models deserve precise measures | |
| dc.type | Article | |
| dc.title.journal | Judgment and Decision Making | |
| dc.identifier.oai | oai:doaj.org/journal:fe2420e24a924f7aae0c42094edbe8fc | |
