↓ Skip to main content

The Recognition Heuristic: A Review of Theory and Tests

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Recognition Heuristic: A Review of Theory and Tests
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00147
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thorsten Pachur, Peter M. Todd, Gerd Gigerenzer, Lael J. Schooler, Daniel G. Goldstein

Abstract

The recognition heuristic is a prime example of how, by exploiting a match between mind and environment, a simple mental strategy can lead to efficient decision making. The proposal of the heuristic initiated a debate about the processes underlying the use of recognition in decision making. We review research addressing four key aspects of the recognition heuristic: (a) that recognition is often an ecologically valid cue; (b) that people often follow recognition when making inferences; (c) that recognition supersedes further cue knowledge; (d) that its use can produce the less-is-more effect - the phenomenon that lesser states of recognition knowledge can lead to more accurate inferences than more complete states. After we contrast the recognition heuristic to other related concepts, including availability and fluency, we carve out, from the existing findings, some boundary conditions of the use of the recognition heuristic as well as key questions for future research. Moreover, we summarize developments concerning the connection of the recognition heuristic with memory models. We suggest that the recognition heuristic is used adaptively and that, compared to other cues, recognition seems to have a special status in decision making. Finally, we discuss how systematic ignorance is exploited in other cognitive mechanisms (e.g., estimation and preference).

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 1%
Switzerland 2 1%
France 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 132 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 25%
Student > Master 22 15%
Researcher 21 14%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Other 27 19%
Unknown 15 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 64 44%
Business, Management and Accounting 15 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 6%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Computer Science 6 4%
Other 22 15%
Unknown 23 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 December 2021.
All research outputs
#1,740,869
of 22,660,862 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,436
of 29,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,020
of 180,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#43
of 239 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,660,862 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,342 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 180,272 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 239 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.