What do you think?
Rate this book
Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment
Judgment pervades human experience. Do I have a strong enough case to go to trial? Will the Fed change interest rates? Can I trust this person? This book examines how people answer such questions. How do people cope with the complexities of the world economy, the uncertain behavior of friends and adversaries, or their own changing tastes and personalities? When are people's judgments prone to bias, and what is responsible for their biases? This book compiles psychologists' best attempts to answer these important questions.
882 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2002
About the author
Thomas Gilovich
14 books102 followersFrom Wikipedia:
Thomas D. Gilovich (born 1954) is a professor of psychology at Cornell University who has researched decision making and behavioral economics and has written popular books on said subjects. He has collaborated with Daniel Kahneman, Lee Ross and Amos Tversky.
Gilovich earned his B.A. from the University of California, Santa Barbara and his Ph.D. in psychology from Stanford University in 1981.
Thomas D. Gilovich (born 1954) is a professor of psychology at Cornell University who has researched decision making and behavioral economics and has written popular books on said subjects. He has collaborated with Daniel Kahneman, Lee Ross and Amos Tversky.
Gilovich earned his B.A. from the University of California, Santa Barbara and his Ph.D. in psychology from Stanford University in 1981.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
September 16, 2009
In 1982, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky edited a volume, "Judgment under Uncertainty." This served as a culmination of their and others' research, bringing together in one volume a large number of reports on how humans make decisions under conditions of uncertainty. In short, they contended that under such conditions, people tend to use heuristics or decision-making shortcuts. This can lead to suboptimal decision-making.
Since, much research has built upon the earlier works. Indeed, there are now two streams in the research on heuristics--one fairly optimistic, exemplified by works of scholars such as Gerd Gigerenzer, and the other more pessimistic, exemplified by this particular volume, edited by Gilovich, Griffin, and Kahneman.
The introduction sets the stage for the myriad essays making up this book. The editors note in the Preface that (page xv): "The core idea of the heuristics and biases program is that judgment under uncertainty is often based on a limited small number of simplifying heuristics rather than more formal and extensive algorithmic processing. These heuristics typically yield accurate judgments but can lead to systematic error." The Introduction itself provides an historical overview of this line of work and notes some of the critiques of this body of research.
The individual essays themselves note some of the basic heuristics (or decision-making shortcuts). To illustrate: representativeness. Here, one takes a small number of cases and generalizes from these. E.g., oh, I knew a couple college basketball players and they were pretty dumb. Hence, one then generalizes and concludes that all basketball players are not so smart. In short, one generalizes from a poor sample. This is one of the roots of stereotyping, which can lead to all manner of mischief.
What is at stake with the study of heuristics and biases? These raise real questions about the common assumption that humans behave rationally, using something like a cost-benefit calculus to make decisions. This has profound implications. Much policy is based on people behaving rationally. If that assumption is wrong, then government decisions based on a flawed view of humans' decision-making isn't likely to have the desired effects.
Part Two explores new theoretical directions. One of the pluses of this volume is that it includes works by those who see heuristics as positive. For instance, an essay by Gigerenzer and colleagues makes the point that heuristics may do better as a source of decision-making than even statistical predictions.
Part Three looks at real world applications, from "the hot hand in basketball" to an evaluation of clinical judgments to political decisions.
In short, this volume covers a lot of territory. The work is not meant for Joe Six Pack. It is written by academics and may be a bit dense for some readers. But there is much at stake with the research program described in this volume. I think that many people would find the struggle to understand the arguments here as worthwhile.
Since, much research has built upon the earlier works. Indeed, there are now two streams in the research on heuristics--one fairly optimistic, exemplified by works of scholars such as Gerd Gigerenzer, and the other more pessimistic, exemplified by this particular volume, edited by Gilovich, Griffin, and Kahneman.
The introduction sets the stage for the myriad essays making up this book. The editors note in the Preface that (page xv): "The core idea of the heuristics and biases program is that judgment under uncertainty is often based on a limited small number of simplifying heuristics rather than more formal and extensive algorithmic processing. These heuristics typically yield accurate judgments but can lead to systematic error." The Introduction itself provides an historical overview of this line of work and notes some of the critiques of this body of research.
The individual essays themselves note some of the basic heuristics (or decision-making shortcuts). To illustrate: representativeness. Here, one takes a small number of cases and generalizes from these. E.g., oh, I knew a couple college basketball players and they were pretty dumb. Hence, one then generalizes and concludes that all basketball players are not so smart. In short, one generalizes from a poor sample. This is one of the roots of stereotyping, which can lead to all manner of mischief.
What is at stake with the study of heuristics and biases? These raise real questions about the common assumption that humans behave rationally, using something like a cost-benefit calculus to make decisions. This has profound implications. Much policy is based on people behaving rationally. If that assumption is wrong, then government decisions based on a flawed view of humans' decision-making isn't likely to have the desired effects.
Part Two explores new theoretical directions. One of the pluses of this volume is that it includes works by those who see heuristics as positive. For instance, an essay by Gigerenzer and colleagues makes the point that heuristics may do better as a source of decision-making than even statistical predictions.
Part Three looks at real world applications, from "the hot hand in basketball" to an evaluation of clinical judgments to political decisions.
In short, this volume covers a lot of territory. The work is not meant for Joe Six Pack. It is written by academics and may be a bit dense for some readers. But there is much at stake with the research program described in this volume. I think that many people would find the struggle to understand the arguments here as worthwhile.
November 24, 2013
No, I did not read this cover to cover. This was a birthday gift from my Mom, who declared it her favorite Booth School textbook. Every Winter or Summer break between semesters at UW-Madison I would attempt another go at this one, noticing with each try how far I could go as new additions to my liberal arts curriculum enabled me to better decipher the dense professorial jargon.
After spending my senior year researching and writing a thesis about the behavioral psychology motivating voter choice, I can now say that I'm capable of following along with this collection of heavily influential and pathbreaking research papers seeking out the boundaries of rational decision-making. However, most of the hypotheses and results are already presented in a nonspecialist-friendly format in any bookstore's psychology nonfiction shelf by Nicholas Taleb, Steven Pinker, Dan Ariely, and Roy Baumeister.
While I have to yet to crack open Thinking, Fast and Slow, which I'm certain will contain over 95% of this book's layperson-relevant results, the illuminating discussions about the causes and consequences of heuristics and biases among those who are also up-to-speed on the literature more than compensated for what was exhausting reading.
After spending my senior year researching and writing a thesis about the behavioral psychology motivating voter choice, I can now say that I'm capable of following along with this collection of heavily influential and pathbreaking research papers seeking out the boundaries of rational decision-making. However, most of the hypotheses and results are already presented in a nonspecialist-friendly format in any bookstore's psychology nonfiction shelf by Nicholas Taleb, Steven Pinker, Dan Ariely, and Roy Baumeister.
While I have to yet to crack open Thinking, Fast and Slow, which I'm certain will contain over 95% of this book's layperson-relevant results, the illuminating discussions about the causes and consequences of heuristics and biases among those who are also up-to-speed on the literature more than compensated for what was exhausting reading.
May 1, 2007
This book is targeted at decision scientists, and therefore is not terribly accessible to people who aren't fairly advanced in the study of empirical psychology or behavioral economics.
However, for folks who are interested in the topic, this is the premier book for understanding the heuristics and biases approach to decision making. It is a collection of some of the most influential articles in the field. Students of social or cognitive psychology who are interested in judgment and decision making should absolutely have a copy.
However, for folks who are interested in the topic, this is the premier book for understanding the heuristics and biases approach to decision making. It is a collection of some of the most influential articles in the field. Students of social or cognitive psychology who are interested in judgment and decision making should absolutely have a copy.
September 5, 2020
Not a book for "normal" readers, as it is heavily oriented for people used to reading research papers .
A well detailed book showing all the seminal works( including some boring ones!) which let to research in decision making which led to the nobel prize.
It is like a library...take a cursory look at papers and read what interests you...!
A well detailed book showing all the seminal works( including some boring ones!) which let to research in decision making which led to the nobel prize.
It is like a library...take a cursory look at papers and read what interests you...!
July 20, 2020
If you read Thinking fast and slow, this is its mother. It is harder to read and less structured.
More in depth view of science of decision making.
More in depth view of science of decision making.
August 9, 2010
Awesome literature review about various cognitive biases. High information density. You can definitely get the "bottom line" presentation of this sort of thing from other books (like "Nudge" by Thayler (sp?) and Sunstein) but if you're interested in the experimental basis behind the conclusions, this is the book for you.
August 8, 2015
Loved it. Probably not a book for everyone but if you have any interest in or want a basic understanding of biases, this book might be for you! I found a few parts that seem just too basic, too general or too unspecific. Other than those few parts the book is very interesting. It is a really good read.
Currently reading
August 28, 2008This is going to be great, but dense.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews