Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-r6c6k Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-12T11:19:11.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

More than two intuitions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2023

David J. Grüning  and
Joachim I. Krueger Open the ORCID record for Joachim I. Krueger [Opens in a new window]
David J. Grüning
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany david.gruening@psychologie.uni-heidelberg.de Department of Survey Design and Methodology, GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Mannheim, Germany
Joachim I. Krueger
Affiliation:
Cognitive, Linguistic & Psychological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA joachim_krueger@brown.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We consider an underdeveloped feature of De Neys's model. Decisions with multiple intuitions per option are neither trivial to explain nor rare. These decision scenarios are crucial for an assessment of the model's generalizability and adequacy. Besides monitoring absolute differences in intuition strength, the mind might add the strengths of intuitions per choice option, leading to competing and testable hypotheses.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e124
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. Academic Press..Google Scholar
Candolin, U. (2003). The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biological Reviews, 78(4), 575–595. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793103006158CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grüning, D. J., Alves, H., Mata, A. O. P., & Fiedler, K. (in press). Reversing the cumulative redundancy bias to demonstrate metacognitive flexibility in cue utilization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.Google Scholar
Gunes, H., Piccardi, M., & Pantic, M. (2008). From the lab to the real world: Affect recognition using multiple cues and modalities. In Or, J. (Ed.), Affective computing: Focus on emotion expression, synthesis, and recognition (pp. 185–218). InTechOpen.Google Scholar
Juslin, P., Karlsson, L., & Olsson, H. (2008). Information integration in multiple cue judgment: A division of labor hypothesis. Cognition, 106(1), 259–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.02.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plessner, H., Schweizer, G., Brand, R., & O'Hare, D. (2009). A multiple-cue learning approach as the basis for understanding and improving soccer referees’ decision making. Progress in Brain Research, 174, 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(09)01313-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar