A pedagogic appraisal of the Priority Heuristic

We have explored how science and mathematics teachers made decisions when confronted with a dilemma in which a fictitious young woman, Deborah, may choose to have an operation that might address a painful spinal condition. We sought to explore the extent to which psychological heuristic models, in particular the Priority Heuristic, might successfully describe the decision-making process of these teachers and how an analysis of the role of personal and emotional factors in shaping the decision-making process might inform pedagogical design. A novel aspect of this study is that the setting in which the decision-making process is examined contrasts sharply with those used in psychological experiments. We found that to some extent, even in this contrasting setting, the Priority Heuristic could describe these teachers' decision-making. Further analysis of the transcripts yielded some insights into limitations on scope as well the richness and complexity in how personal factors were brought to bear. We see these limitations as design opportunities for educational intervention

Fast and frugal heuristics for portfolio decisions with positive project interactions

We consider portfolio decision problems with positive interactions between projects. Exact solutions to this problem require that all interactions are assessed, requiring time, expertise and effort that may not always be available. We develop and test a number of fast and frugal heuristics – psychologically plausible models that limit the number of assessments to be made and combine these in computationally simple ways – for portfolio decisions. The proposed “add-the-best” family of heuristics constructs a portfolio by iteratively adding a project that is best in a greedy sense, with various definitions of “best”. We present analytical results showing that information savings achievable by heuristics can be considerable; a simulation experiment showing that portfolios selected by heuristics can be close to optimal under certain conditions; and a behavioral laboratory experiment demonstrating that choices are often consistent with the use of heuristics. Add-the-best heuristics combine descriptive plausibility with effort-accuracy trade-offs that make them potentially attractive for prescriptive use

Fast and frugal heuristics for portfolio decisions with positive project interactions

Funding: ID is supported in part by funding from the National Research Foundation of South Africa (Grant ID 90782, 105782).We consider portfolio decision problems with positive interactions between projects. Exact solutions to this problem require that all interactions are assessed, requiring time, expertise and effort that may not always be available. We develop and test a number of fast and frugal heuristics – psychologically plausible models that limit the number of assessments to be made and combine these in computationally simple ways – for portfolio decisions. The proposed “add-the-best” family of heuristics constructs a portfolio by iteratively adding a project that is best in a greedy sense, with various definitions of “best”. We present analytical results showing that information savings achievable by heuristics can be considerable; a simulation experiment showing that portfolios selected by heuristics can be close to optimal under certain conditions; and a behavioral laboratory experiment demonstrating that choices are often consistent with the use of heuristics. Add-the-best heuristics combine descriptive plausibility with effort-accuracy trade-offs that make them potentially attractive for prescriptive use.PostprintPeer reviewe

Creativity Through Connectedness: The Role of Closeness and Perspective Taking in Group Creativity

Achievements in various fields of creativity are resulting more and more from collaborative teams. This research investigated the role of interpersonal process variables, namely closeness and perspective taking in group creativity, with a 2 by 2 experimental design. Sixty-one 3-person groups assigned to 4 conditions (a: closeness and perspective taking, b: perspective taking, c: no closeness and no perspective taking, d: closeness). Group members collaboratively wrote stories that were rated by 3 independent expert judges. There was a positive main effect of closeness and negative main effect of perspective taking on group creativity scores. Moreover, the significant interaction between perspective taking and closeness displayed that combination of closeness with perspective taking negatively affect group creativity. These results indicate that closeness might be beneficial for group creativity only when it is not accompanied with perspective taking