As we should now understand, heuristics are the mental short-cuts which we experience in order to make decisions and or judgements in a timely manner. These short-cut strategies enable us to shorten the time needed to make decisions; which comes in handy when we have limited time to make said decisions (Elstein, 1999). There are a general set of heuristics which are used in our everyday lives and are discussed in greater detail in the page above. However, there is another sub-group of heuristics with its own variations which play a pivotal role in our day to day social lives and interactions. Social heuristics direct our behavior in the social context. As many of us are aware, the social environment is quite complex and at times outcomes can be uncertain; however, through repetitive interactions, our minds have created short-cuts to enable us to act and react according to the social factors and predicaments involved in our interactions (Hertwig, 2013). Within social psychology, there are a number of different social heuristics; the most prominent heuristics will be discussed, there are five. The imitate the majority, imitate the successful, equity, social circle and tit-for-tat heuristics will be explained. It is to be noted that the social heuristics explained below are capable of being both unconsciously and consciously used (Hertwig, 2013 & Pachur, 2005). It should also be noted that although each heuristic is effective, they come with the potential for biases.
Imitate-the-majority heuristic: Have you ever been walking around the downtown of a
city on a Friday night, clueless as to which restaurant to eat at. Or trying to
decide which bar or club you’re going to dance the night away in? How many
times have you based your decision off of the amount of people waiting in line
outside? The imitate-the-majority heuristic is the idea that we decide what to
do based off of what the majority are doing. We base our actions, judgments,
choices, opinions and decisions on what the majority in our peer group are
doing, or what the majority are doing in our social situation. Thus, we will
get in the longer lines as the majority are showing us this is the proper
decision (Hertwig, 2013).
Although this method of decision-making may be accurate at times, and “when in Rome, do as the Romans do” makes decent sense; under some circumstances, this can also lead to difficult situations; as the ‘majority’ may not be in the proper frame of mind when they made their decision. And sometimes, people imitate “undesirable and unhealthy behavior from their social network; and social information”(Hertwig, 2013). Acquiring this behavior from others in one’s social network can lead to less accurate, less reliable and less timely information than from one’s own personal instincts and general mental-shortcuts (general heuristics) (Hertwig, 2013).
Although this method of decision-making may be accurate at times, and “when in Rome, do as the Romans do” makes decent sense; under some circumstances, this can also lead to difficult situations; as the ‘majority’ may not be in the proper frame of mind when they made their decision. And sometimes, people imitate “undesirable and unhealthy behavior from their social network; and social information”(Hertwig, 2013). Acquiring this behavior from others in one’s social network can lead to less accurate, less reliable and less timely information than from one’s own personal instincts and general mental-shortcuts (general heuristics) (Hertwig, 2013).
Imitate-the-successful heuristic: It is inherent in nature to desire to have what
those who have seen success have. Thus, by looking at a successful person, and
imitating their behaviour, we feel gratification in thinking we too will
achieve the same level of success. If we follow in their footsteps, if we make
the same decisions and choices and have the same judgements, preferences,
desires and opinions; we too will achieve the same success or at least similar success
to theirs (Hertwig, 2013). This is the thinking behind the imitate-the-successful
heuristic. When desiring certain outcomes, or choosing certain paths, we naturally
choose a model individual in which to base our journey off of. This model may
be real or fictional. We often use these model individuals to help us in
avoiding the very common, yet timely and tedious trial and error method.
Instead, we choose to make our decisions off of the “What would ….. do” model
(Hertwig, 2013). You may find yourself in
the world of law, attempting to make your way up the very complex ladder to success,
you sometimes stop to think, “What would Harvey Spector do?” when put in
certain situations, this is the perfect example of this heuristic. Of course,
your model does not have to be fictional or in the field of law, this can be
anyone who is a model individual within your field, or simply someone who
models your desired behaviour.
This of course can come with issues, as everyone is wired differently, and although your model individual may seem to have all of the success you wish for, it is important to remember that everyone is wired differently, and opinions, judgements, preferences and choices of others, may not be the best for you as an individual (Gerd, 2008).
This of course can come with issues, as everyone is wired differently, and although your model individual may seem to have all of the success you wish for, it is important to remember that everyone is wired differently, and opinions, judgements, preferences and choices of others, may not be the best for you as an individual (Gerd, 2008).
Equity heuristic: When dealing with
more than one person in our social groups, we often try to ensure all parties
earn equal resources (attention, Christmas/birthday presents, affection) in
order to prevent conflict. Thus, when ‘hanging out’ with friends, we normally
spend equal time and devote equivalent amounts of attention in order to ‘keep
the peace’ and prevent any poor feelings which may disrupt our social groups.
The equity heuristic is often supported by the dealings of parental resource allocation decisions. Meaning, typically and naturally, parents devote their time and efforts equally among their children; again, to prevent conflict within their social group (family). This heuristic, according to Hertwig (2013), is present in children as early as seven years old when dealing with food. They are aware at this age that they may either take the larger quantity, give it to the other person within their social group, or distribute it equally among them. This concept can be traced back to hunter and gathering societies, as they believed equal distribution was a deciding factor “in the evolution of human cooperation” (Hertwig, 2013).
The equity heuristic is often supported by the dealings of parental resource allocation decisions. Meaning, typically and naturally, parents devote their time and efforts equally among their children; again, to prevent conflict within their social group (family). This heuristic, according to Hertwig (2013), is present in children as early as seven years old when dealing with food. They are aware at this age that they may either take the larger quantity, give it to the other person within their social group, or distribute it equally among them. This concept can be traced back to hunter and gathering societies, as they believed equal distribution was a deciding factor “in the evolution of human cooperation” (Hertwig, 2013).
Social-circle heuristic: We all have a number of different social-circles
with a number of different people within each of them; some people being
involved in more than one, however, each of our social circles carry different members
(family, friends, acquaintances etc.) The social-circle heuristic, also known
as “take-the-best” heuristic, involves an individual taking social (or non-social)
information, and inputting it into each of their social circles, retrieving a
census based on the information, opinions, and judgements given back (Hertwig,
2013 & Pachur, 2005). The highest instances of one alternative over the
other, helps an individual to make his or her own judgements based off of those
within their social circles (Pachur, 2005).
For example, I would like to move to a new area, I have narrowed it down to two different suburban areas which interest me (A & B). I ask my family, friends and acquaintances (coworkers, friends of friends). Most people tell me that choice A is a nice area, however has seen quite a few burglaries within the past year, and B is all around a safe and beautiful area to live; thus, from the input of those within my social circles, I decide to move to area B.
Although we often surround ourselves with those who are similar to us, it is sometimes best to do more research than simply asking those within our social circles (Pachur, 2005).
For example, I would like to move to a new area, I have narrowed it down to two different suburban areas which interest me (A & B). I ask my family, friends and acquaintances (coworkers, friends of friends). Most people tell me that choice A is a nice area, however has seen quite a few burglaries within the past year, and B is all around a safe and beautiful area to live; thus, from the input of those within my social circles, I decide to move to area B.
Although we often surround ourselves with those who are similar to us, it is sometimes best to do more research than simply asking those within our social circles (Pachur, 2005).
Tit-for-Tat heuristic: This heuristic is often used in
social exchanges. And making decisions in said social exchanges. The principle in
this heuristic is to first cooperate or agree with your counterpart, followed
by imitating your counterparts’ latest behavior(s). By completing this path of
action you will often see greater cooperation and or acceptance into your counterparts’
social group/circle and vice versa (Hertwig, 2013). On the other hand, instead of choosing to
cooperate with your counterpart, after agreeing with his/her behavior you may
also choose to defect their behavior (Hertwig, 2013).
We use this heuristic in our social interactions as we often listen to what others have to say prior to deciding if we agree with it or not. This form of interaction helps us decide if we would like to continue to have social interactions with an individual or not and helps in forming opinions of others (Gerd, 2008).
We use this heuristic in our social interactions as we often listen to what others have to say prior to deciding if we agree with it or not. This form of interaction helps us decide if we would like to continue to have social interactions with an individual or not and helps in forming opinions of others (Gerd, 2008).
Bibliography:
Elstein, A. S. (July 01, 1999). Heuristics and biases. Academic Medicine, 74, 7.
Gerd, G. (January 01, 2008). Why Heuristics Work. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 1, 20-29.
Hertwig, R., Hoffrage, U., & ABC Research Group. (2013). Simple heuristics in a social world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pachur, T., Rieskamp, J., & Hertwig, R. (2005) The social circle heuristic: Fast and frigal decisions based on small samples. In K. Forbus, D. Genter, & T. Regier, Proceedings of the 26th annual conference of the cognitive science society. 1077-1082. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Elstein, A. S. (July 01, 1999). Heuristics and biases. Academic Medicine, 74, 7.
Gerd, G. (January 01, 2008). Why Heuristics Work. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 1, 20-29.
Hertwig, R., Hoffrage, U., & ABC Research Group. (2013). Simple heuristics in a social world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pachur, T., Rieskamp, J., & Hertwig, R. (2005) The social circle heuristic: Fast and frigal decisions based on small samples. In K. Forbus, D. Genter, & T. Regier, Proceedings of the 26th annual conference of the cognitive science society. 1077-1082. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
This page has been written and edited by Hannah More.
PSY 2110 G: Term Project April 2015
PSY 2110 G: Term Project April 2015