Gerd Gigerenzer | |
---|---|
Born | |
Alma mater | University of Munich (MA, PhD) |
Known for | Adaptive toolbox |
Spouse | Lorraine Daston |
Children | Thalia Gigerenzer |
Awards | AAAS Prize for Behavioral Science Research (2008) German Psychology Prize (2011) Communicator Award of the German Research Association (DFG) (2011) |
Scientific career | |
Fields | Risk Psychology Decision theory |
Institutions | Max Planck Institute for Human Development (Director since 1997) Harding Center for Risk Literacy (Director since 2008) |
Thesis | Nonmetrische multidimensionale Skalierung als Modell des Urteilverhaltens (German) (1977) |
Doctoral students | Daniel Goldstein |
Website | www |
Gerd Gigerenzer (born 3 September 1947) is a German psychologist who has studied the use of bounded rationality and heuristics in decision making. Gigerenzer is director emeritus of the Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition (ABC) at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development,[1] Berlin, director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy,[2] University of Potsdam, and vice president of the European Research Council (ERC).[3]
Gigerenzer investigates how humans make inferences about their world with limited time and knowledge. He proposes that, in an uncertain world, probability theory is not sufficient; people also use smart heuristics, that is, rules of thumb. He conceptualizes rational decisions in terms of the adaptive toolbox (the repertoire of heuristics an individual or institution has) and the ability to choose a good heuristics for the task at hand. A heuristic is called ecologically rational to the degree that it is adapted to the structure of an environment.
Gigerenzer argues that heuristics are not irrational or always second-best to optimization, as the accuracy-effort trade-off view assumes, in which heuristics are seen as short-cuts that trade less effort for less accuracy. In contrast, his and associated researchers' studies have identified situations in which "less is more", that is, where heuristics make more accurate decisions with less effort. This contradicts the traditional view that more information is always better or at least can never hurt if it is free. Less-is-more effects have been shown experimentally, analytically, and by computer simulations.[4]