Modeling and Aiding Intuition in Organizational Decision Making

Dear colleagues,

We like to

In this special issue, a total of 17 articles pull together diverse approaches to intuition, including naturalistic-decision-making, heuristics-and-biases, dual-processes, ACT-R, CLARION, Brunswikian approaches, and Quantum-Probability-Theory. They use various methods (computational models, experimental and observational work, laboratory and naturalistic research), they cover various domains (consulting, investment, law, police, and morality), and they relate intuition to implicit cognition, emotions, scope insensitivity, expertise, and representative experimental design. Moreover, in our introductory article, we relate intuition research to historical, societal, and philosophical poles such as Enlightenment-Romanticism, reason-emotion, objectivity-subjectivity, inferences-qualia, Taylorism-universal scholarship, dichotomies-dialectics, and science-art.

The contributors to this special issue include several founders of influential research programs on intuition, four former presidents of the Society of Judgment and Decision Making (including the first two), a contemporary of towering Psychologist Egon Brunswik, and various former or current editors of general and specialized psychology journals (e.g., Psychological Review, Judgment and Decision Making, Decision).

In addition to soliciting the usual type of scientific commentaries (e.g., extensions, critique, praise), we would, first and foremost, like to encourage commentaries that make and leave the reader curious, and in doing so, help her to create and shed light on the mystery of what is commonly called “intuition.”

The articles, including our introductory article with its overview of the entire issue, are open access and can be downloaded here:

I. Introduction:

1. Ulrich Hoffrage & Julian N. Marewski — Unveiling the Lady in Black: Modeling and aiding intuition.

II. Experience, Expertise, and Environments:

2. Gary Klein — A naturalistic decision making perspective on studying intuitive decision making.
3. James Shanteau — Why task domains (still) matter for understanding expertise.
4. Kenneth R. Hammond — Causality vs generality: Judgment and decision making struggles to become a scientific discipline.

III. Formal Models and Cognitive Architectures:

5. Robert Thomson, Christian Lebiere, John R. Anderson, & James Staszewski — A general instance-based learning framework for studying intuitive decision-making in a cognitive architecture.
6. Ron Sun — Interpreting psychological notions: A dual-process computational theory.
7. Ion Juvina, Christian Lebiere, & Cleotilde Gonzalez — Modeling trust dynamics in strategic interaction.

IV. Prescription, Aiding, and Rationality:

8. Rex Brown — Decision science as a by-product of decision-aiding: A practitioner’s perspective.
9. Robin Hogarth & Emre Soyer — Providing information for decision making: Contrasting description and simulation.
10. Lee C. White, Emmanuel M. Pothos, Jerome R. Busemeyer — Insights from quantum cognitive models for organizational decision making.

V. Sentencing, Valuation, and Moral Judgments:

11. Mandeep K. Dhami, Ian Belton, & Jane Goodman-Delahunty — Quasirational models of sentencing.
12. Stephan Dickert, Daniel Västfjäll, Janet Kleber, & Paul Slovic — Scope insensitivity: The limits of intuitive valuation of human lives in public policy.
13. Martina Raue, Bernhard Streicher, Eva Lermer, & Dieter Frey — How far does it feel? Construal level and decisions under risk.
14. Jonathan Baron, Sydney Scott, Katrina Fincher, & S. Emlen Metz — Why does the Cognitive Reflection Test (sometimes) predict utilitarian moral judgment (and other things)?

VI. Intuition in the Wild:

15. Sylviane Chassot, Christian A. Klöckner, & Rolf Wüstenhagen — Can implicit cognition predict the behavior of professional energy investors? An explorative application of the Implicit Association Test (IAT).
16. Shanique G. Brown, Catherine S. Daus — The influence of police officers’ decision-making style and anger control on responses to work scenarios.
17. Thorsten Pachur, Melanie Spaar — Domain-specific preferences for intuition and deliberation in decision making.

If you are interested in writing a commentary on one or several of these articles, please send us (Julian.marewski(at), Ulrich.Hoffrage(at), with cc to the journal’s editor-in-chief Ron Fisher, fisherr(at), before January 10th, 2016, a short summary of your proposal (about 1/4 page). We will then decide, before January 15th, whether (or not) we invite you to submit a full commentary. Invited commentaries should be submitted by February 29th. If you anticipate that you will need more time to write your commentary than the 6 weeks we can grant you, we kindly ask you to submit us your ¼ page commentary proposal any time between today and January 10th. If your commentary proposal convinces us on the spot, we will immediately invite you to submit a full commentary, which will give you more time until the submission deadline.

The final version should ultimately fit two journal pages (which amounts to a maximum of approx. 1,800 words, including references), but we are able to offer more space if we can be convinced that readers will likely feel their time to be well-spent.

Julian Marewski & Ulrich Hoffrage