Evaluating three criteria for establishing cue-search hierarchies in inferential judgment

Tim Rakow1, Ben R Newell, Kathryn Fayers

  • 1Department of Psychology, University of Essex, Colchester, United Kingdom. timrakow@essex.ac.uk

Related Concept Videos

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II01:28

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II

The Bradford Hill criteria serve as guidelines for establishing causative links in epidemiological research. Beyond Strength, Consistency, Specificity, and Temporality, key criteria also include Biological Gradient, Plausibility, Coherence, Experiment, and Analogy. These principles assist scientists in assessing the likelihood of causation in complex biological contexts. Below is a summary of these concepts:
Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - I01:30

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - I

The Bradford Hill criteria are a group of principles that provide a framework to determine a causal relationship between a specific factor and a disease. There are nine criteria that are pivotal in assessing causality in epidemiological studies. Here's a closer look at Strength, Consistency, Specificity, and Temporality criteria with definitions and examples:
The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic01:25

The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic

In order to make good decisions, we use our knowledge and our reasoning. Often, this knowledge and reasoning is sound and solid. However, sometimes, we are swayed by biases or by others manipulating a situation. For example, let’s say you and three friends wanted to rent a house and had a combined target budget of $1,600. The realtor shows you only very run-down houses for $1,600 and then shows you a very nice house for $2,000. Might you ask each person to pay more in rent to get the $2,000...
Inductive Reasoning00:59

Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning is a form of logical thinking that uses related observations to arrive at a general conclusion. It is uncertain and operates in degrees to which the conclusions are credible. As such, inductive arguments can be weak or strong, rather than valid or invalid, and conclusions can be used to formulate testable, falsifiable hypotheses.Inductive reasoning is common in descriptive science. A life scientist makes observations and records them. This data can be qualitative or...
Deductive Reasoning01:16

Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning, or deduction, is the type of logic used in hypothesis-based science. In deductive reasoning, the pattern of thinking moves in the opposite direction from inductive reasoning. It uses a general principle or law to predict specific results. From these general principles, a scientist can predict specific results that remain valid as long as the general principles are correct.For example, a researcher can make specific predictions from the hypothesis "butterflies are attracted...
The Representativeness Heuristic02:13

The Representativeness Heuristic

The representative heuristic describes a biased way of thinking, in which you unintentionally stereotype someone or something. For example, you may assume that your professors spend their free time reading books and engaging in intellectual conversation, because the idea of them spending their time playing volleyball or visiting an amusement park does not fit in with your stereotypes of professors.