Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate?

K E Stanovich1, R F West

  • 1Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1V6. kstanovich@oise.utoronto.ca

The Behavioral and Brain Sciences
|April 17, 2001
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Explaining the variance in reading ability in terms of psychological processes: What have we learned?

Annals of dyslexia·2013
Same author

The right and wrong places to look for the cognitive locus of reading disability.

Annals of dyslexia·2013
Same author

Hypodermic needles for local anesthesia of the mouth and jaws.

Dental survey·2010
Same author

Intraosseus injection technics for extraction of teeth and cavity preparation.

Dental survey·2010
Same author

Surgical preparation of the mouth for the reception of dentures.

Dental survey·2010
Same author

The sociopsychometrics of learning disabilities.

Journal of learning disabilities·2004
Same journal

Shared intentionality and attachment theories in WILD and WEIRD contexts.

The Behavioral and brain sciences·2026
Same journal

Constructing an architecture for a decolonized developmental science.

The Behavioral and brain sciences·2026
Same journal

Go WILD, but mind the gap.

The Behavioral and brain sciences·2026
Same journal

WILDing the study of developmental trajectories in navigation and wayfinding: Progress and challenges.

The Behavioral and brain sciences·2026
Same journal

WILD kids, cutting-edge research. Enhancing diversity and reflexivity in psychology.

The Behavioral and brain sciences·2026
Same journal

Ethnographic methods can help psychology overcome its WEIRD problems.

The Behavioral and brain sciences·2026
See all related articles

Human decision-making often deviates from rational models. This study explores whether cognitive limitations or task interpretation, not just irrationality, explain these deviations in judgment and choice.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Behavioral Economics
  • Decision Science

Background:

  • Human responses frequently differ from normative models of decision-making and rational judgment.
  • This discrepancy is often interpreted as irrationality in human cognition.
  • Alternative explanations suggest rationality is maintained through performance errors, computational limits, incorrect norms, or differing task construals.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the normative/descriptive gap in human decision-making.
  • To examine the role of individual differences in understanding this gap.
  • To evaluate four alternative explanations for deviations from normative models.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of individual differences in performance across classic heuristics and biases tasks.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Experimental examination of cognitive decontextualization effects.
  • Investigating covariance patterns to identify norm misapplication or alternative task construals.

    • Main Results:

    • Performance errors were found to be a minor contributor to the normative/descriptive gap.
    • Computational limitations significantly explain non-normative responses, especially in tasks requiring cognitive decontextualization.
    • Unexpected covariance patterns indicated potential issues with applied norms or subject task interpretation.

    Conclusions:

    • Human cognition may be rational, with deviations explained by factors beyond simple irrationality.
    • Cognitive limitations and task construal are key factors influencing decision-making.
    • Further research should consider individual differences and context when evaluating decision-making models.