Abstract
We examined the decision strategies and cue use of experts and novices in a consequential domain: crime. Three participant groups decided which of two residential properties was more likely to be burgled, on the basis of eight cues such as location of the property. The two expert groups were experienced burglars and police officers, and the novice group was composed of graduate students. We found that experts’ choices were best predicted by a lexicographic heuristic strategy called take-the-best that implies noncompensatory information processing, whereas novices’ choices were best predicted by a weighted additive linear strategy that implies compensatory processing. The two expert groups, however, differed in the cues they considered important in making their choices, and the police officers were actually more similar to novices in this regard. These findings extend the literature on judgment, decision making, and expertise, and have implications for criminal justice policy.
Article PDF
References
Bergert, F. B., & Nosofsky, R. M. (2007). A response-time approach to comparing generalized ration and take-the-best models of decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 107–129.
Bolger, F., & Wright, G. (1994). Assessing the quality of expert judgement: Issues and analysis. Decision Support Systems, 11, 1–24.
Bröder, A., & Gaissmaier, W. (2007). Sequential processing of cues in memory-based multiattribute decisions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 895–900.
Buck, A. J., Hakim, S., & Rengert, G. F. (1993). Burglar alarms and the choice behavior of burglars: A suburban phenomenon. Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 497–507.
Czerlinski, J., Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1999). How good are simple heuristics? In G. Gigerenzer, P. M. Todd, & the ABC Research Group (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 97–118). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dhami, M. K., & Ayton, P. (2001). Bailing and jailing the fast and frugal way. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14, 141–168.
Dhami, M. K., & Harries, C. (2001). Fast and frugal versus regression models of human judgment. Thinking & Reasoning, 7, 5–27.
Dhami, M. K., Hertwig, R., & Hoffrage, U. (2004). The role of representative design in an ecological approach to cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 959–988.
Dieckmann, A., & Rieskamp, J. (2007). The influence of information redundancy on probabilistic inference. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1801–1813.
Ettenson, R., Shanteau, J., & Krogstad, J. (1987). Expert judgment: Is more information better? Psychological Report, 60, 227–238.
Garcia-Retamero, R., Hoffrage, U., & Dieckmann, A. (2007). When one cue is not enough: Combining fast and frugal heuristics with compound cue processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1197–1215.
Garcia-Retamero, R., Takezawa, M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Group communication and decision-making strategies. Psicothema, 20, 753–759.
Garcia-Retamero, R., Wallin, A., & Dieckmann, A. (2007). Does causal knowledge help us be faster and more frugal in our decisions? Memory & Cognition, 35, 1399–1409.
Gigerenzer, G. (2007). Gut feelings: The intelligence of the unconscious. New York: Viking.
Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103, 650–669.
Hammond, K. R. (2000). Judgments under stress. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ham-Rowbottom, K. A., Gifford, R., & Shaw, K. T. (1999). Defensible space theory and the police: Assessing the vulnerability of residents to burglary. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 117–129.
Johnson, E., & Payne, J. (1986). The decision to commit a crime: An information processing analysis. In D. B. Cornish & R. V. Clarke (Eds.), The reasoning criminal (pp. 170–185). New York: Springer.
Mata, R., Schooler, L. J., & Rieskamp, J. (2007). The aging decision maker: Cognitive aging and the adaptive selection of decision strategies. Psychology & Aging, 22, 796–810.
Nee, C., & Meenaghan, A. (2006). Expert decision making in burglars. British Journal of Criminology, 46, 935–949.
Nee, C., & Taylor, M. (2000). Examining burglars’ target selection: Interview, experiment, or ethnomethodology? Psychology, Crime, & Law, 6, 45–59.
Nicholas, S., Kershaw, C., & Walker, A. (2007). Crime in England and Wales 2006/07. London: Home Office.
Phelps, R. H., & Shanteau, J. (1978). Livestock judges: How much information can an expert use? Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 21, 209–219.
Rieskamp, J., & Hoffrage, U. (2008). Inferences under time pressure: How opportunity costs affect strategy selection. Acta Psychologica, 127, 258–276.
Rieskamp, J., & Otto, P. E. (2006). SSL: A theory of how people learn to select strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 207–236.
Shanteau, J. (1988). Psychological characteristics and strategies of expert decision makers. Acta Psychologica, 68, 203–215.
Shanteau, J. (1992a). Competence in experts: The role of task characteristics. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 53, 252–266.
Shanteau, J. (1992b). How much information does an expert use? Is it relevant? Acta Psychologica, 81, 75–86.
Shanteau, J., Grier, M., Johnson, J., & Berner, E. (1991). Teaching decision-making skills to student nurses. In J. Baron & R. V. Brown (Eds.), Teaching decision-making to adolescents (pp. 185–206). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shaw, K. T., & Gifford, R. (1994). Residents’ and burglars’ assessment of burglary risk from defensible space cues. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 177–194.
Wright, R., Logie, R. H., & Decker, S. H. (1995). Criminal expertise and offender decision making: An experimental study of the targetselection process in residential burglary. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 32, 39–54.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Garcia-Retamero, R., Dhami, M.K. Take-the-best in expert-novice decision strategies for residential burglary. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16, 163–169 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.1.163
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.1.163