Heuristics in Judgment Tasks with Unrecognized Elements
Research Reports
Heuristics in Judgment Tasks with Unrecognized Elements
Miguel Dimase* a
[a] Faculty of Psychology, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Abstract
According to published studies in the field, random choice and random estimation are the only options for tackling judgment and decision-
making tasks where the elements from which to infer a required criteria are not recognized. In Campitelli and Labollita (2010), participants
were asked to estimate the nationality and Elo rating of chess players based on their surnames. In the present study I re-analyze those 123
participants from Campitelli and Labollita (2010) who declared not to have recognized any player. Even in this scenario of null recognition,
they managed to correctly infer the Russian players' nationality and Elo ratings; it is likely that successful and ecologically rational heuristics
were used. I found evidence of new structured probabilistic environments external to the lab, likely to have generated a number of
undirected and involuntary associations in the memories of the participants, who may have used them in their heuristics to infer the criteria
requested. The results support the models of limited rationality: despite the scarcity of available information, the fact that the heuristics did
not guarantee success, and the risk of overestimating the heuristics’ effectiveness while underestimating their own biases, participants still
favored them over random guesswork, thus suggesting an adaptive use. I invite a revision of what is considered “good reasoning” when
applied to problems in environments of uncertainty that call for satisfactory, rather than optimal, solutions. This research provides the basis
for new studies in the field of heuristics under previously unexplored conditions, and a new perspective for the analysis of prior works,
towards a better understanding of the relationship between cognition and the environment.
Keywords: heuristics, recognition, bounded rationality, decision-making
Europe's Journal of Psychology, 2019, Vol. 15(3), 531–552, https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i3.1687
Received: 2018-06-28. Accepted: 2019-01-29. Published (VoR): 2019-09-27.
Handling Editor: Jennifer Murray, Edinburgh Napier University, United Kingdom
*Corresponding author at: Peron 4083 7 16, C1198AAAY, Buenos Aires, Argentina. E-mail: miguel.dimase@gmail.cou
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, CC BY 4.0
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
Historically, philosophy and psychology have tried to define human rationality in terms of its relationship with
the rules of logic, offering models that ranged from complete adherence to total independence from said rules.
Meanwhile, research on how people make judgments and decisions have generally relied on the criteria of co-
herence, correspondence and pragmatism for the purposes of gauging truthness and correctness (Dunwoody,
2009). Research so far has mostly used the criterion of coherence to evaluate the truthness/correctness or
falsehood/incorrectness of a given process against a normative system. The program Heuristics and biases
initiated by Kahneman and Tversky (e.g., Kahneman, Slovic, & Tversky, 1982; Kahneman & Tversky, 1973) ap-
plied this criterion when it concluded that humans’ heuristics (inferential strategies that guide the search for sol-
utions) exhibit biases (systematic errors) compared to the norms of classical logic and probability. By contrast,
the program Fast-and-frugal heuristics 1 initiated by Gerd Gigerenzer (e.g., Gigerenzer & Todd, 1999) used the
criteria of correspondence (coincidence with facts of the world) and pragmatism (utility) to characterize these
Europe's Journal of Psychology
ejop.psychopen.eu | 1841-0413
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://ejop.psychopen.eu/
https://ejop.psychopen.eu/
https://www.psychopen.eu/
heuristics as inferential abilities adapted to cognitive limitations and varying environments. The recognition heu-
ristic (Gigerenzer & Goldstein, 1996) used these criteria for evaluating forced decisions such as the following:
Which of these German cities has the largest population?
(a) Hamburg
(b) Kassel
The heuristic was defined thus: "If one of the two objects is recognized and the other is not, then infer that the
recognized object has the higher value with respect to the criterion" (Goldstein & Gigerenzer, 2002, p. 76). Cri-
terion refers to a characteristic of reality about which one must judge or decide (e.g., population). In this exam-
ple, Hamburg would be chosen more frequently because it tends to be more generally recognized, and since
this city is indeed the most populated, this would yield average success rates above random chance. The rec-
ognition heuristic predicted the results of the 2003 and 2005 Wimbledon tennis matches with equal or greater
precision than experts and ATP rankings (Scheibehenne & Brödder, 2007; Serwe & Frings, 2006); in the North
American and German stock markets, the heuristic’s average performance equaled or surpassed that of major
investment funds, market indices, random stock portfolios and portfolios built with stock from less recognized
companies (Borges, Goldstein, Ortmann, & Gigerenzer, 1999). Recognition-based judgments applied to pre-
dicting electoral results of political parties have performed as well as or better than opinion polling (Gaissmaier
& Marewski, 2011). When both of the elements involved in a decision or all of the elements involved in a judg-
ment can be recognized, the recognition heuristic is no longer applicable, forcing subjects to either search their
memories for additional information or change the heuristic (for an introduction to various strategies, see Pohl,
2011). Published studies postulate that when no element is recognized, choosing or judging at random are the
only remaining options (e.g., Gigerenzer & Goldstein, 1996; Goldstein & Gigerenzer, 2002; Pohl, 2011).
However, human beings find themselves routinely compelled by social, political and economic circumstances to
make decisions or estimations based on various criteria (e.g., distances, weights, prices, ages, manufacturing
qualities, ethnic origins, ethical issues, intentions) that involve new and unrecognized elements (e.g., faces,
ideas, consumer goods, physical spaces, surnames). Example scenarios in a social context include picking the
right people out of a group of strangers for a given task, evaluating the best way to act in a new place or situa-
tion; assessing which new foods, movies, books or music to consume; judging among different possible solu-
tions to new problems; etc.
Overview of the Present Study
In the present study I re-analyzed part of the data presented in Campitelli and Labollita (2010). Said article re-
ports a study in which participants were asked, among other tasks, to estimate the nationality and Elo2 rating of
a set of chess players on the sole basis of their surnames. One of the tables contained only non-Argentine
players, including players with Russian nationality and non-Russian players with Slavic surnames.3 Another ta-
ble contained only Argentine players, some of them with Slavic surnames. The participants recognized almost
none of the players' surnames.
Seeing that the estimation of nationality and Elo rating yielded success rates above chance, Campitelli and
Labollita conjectured that the participants must have resorted to indirect knowledge (inferences) for their an-
swers (e.g., they may have assigned Russia to an unrecognized Karpov on the basis of the suffix -ov; they may
have estimated a high Elo rating for him on the assumption that Russians —or those with the suffix -ov— are
Heuristics in Judgments with Unrecognized Elements 532
Europe's Journal of Psychology
2019, Vol. 15(3), 531–552
https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i3.1687
https://www.psychopen.eu/
better at chess). The authors assumed that the participants: (a) had found some surnames that “seemed Russi-
an” (p. 187); (b) knew that "surnames ending in -ov tend to be Russian" (p. 186); (c) knew that Russians "are
good at chess" (p. 184); (d) knew that "Russians have been dominating chess for a long time" (p. 188); (e) had
used this knowledge to infer nationalities; (f) had used this knowledge to infer Elo ratings.
The goal of this study was to test those assumptions with the purpose of providing evidence regarding how de-
cisions and judgments are made in the face of unrecognized elements, and the environments that facilitate this
process.
Hypothesis
(1) In the estimation of nationality, the surnames of Slavic origin (surnames ending in -ov, -ev and -enko, listed
in Table A.1 in Appendix A) will lead to significantly higher average success rates for Russian players than for
non-Russian players; (2) In the estimation of Elo ratings, the surnames of Slavic origin (surnames ending in -ov,
-ev, -enko and -cki, listed in Table A.2 in Appendix A) will lead to significantly higher average success rates for
Slavic players than for non-Slavic players.
To theoretically support these hypotheses, I will now describe: how humans can use inferences and heuristics
to decide and estimate on the basis of limited information; why these heuristics are ecologically rational; the
probabilistic structure of the environments in which they are developed, particularly the recognition heuristic;
the components necessary (and the evidence that supports them) to compose a heuristic capable of yielding
success without recognition; the ecological rationality of these heuristics with regard to those environments. Fi-
nally, I will offer an explanation as to how all these elements may have facilitated the inference of the Russian
players’ nationality and the Slavic players’ relative Elo ratings.
Inferences and Heuristics with Limited Information
To infer is to arrive at a conclusion from another certain element (Real Academia Española [RAE], 2012). For
example, looking into someone’s eyes to infer a suspected guilt, or inferring the size of a toad from the loud-
ness of its croak (Gigerenzer & Goldstein, 1996). These cues are unreliable because the eyes can deceive,
and a small toad can have a deep croak. Heuristic means “to find or discover”. Humans use heuristics to guide
their decisions and solutions when facing limitations of time, information and cognitive resources, or simply be-
cause of their adaptiveness to a given environment (Gigerenzer & Brighton, 2009; Goldstein & Gigerenzer,
2002). For example, baseball players use the gaze heuristic to estimate where the ball will fall (Gigerenzer,
2007).
Heuristics and Environmental Structures
Ecological rationality, as it applies to a heuristic, refers to a model of rationality based on correspondence and
to the way humans correlate with their environment (Brunswik, 1943; Hammond, 2001; Simon, 1990). For ex-
ample, the recognition heuristic is based on an ecologically rational cognitive adaptation (Goldstein &
Gigerenzer, 2002), since recognition memory is expandable, sensitive and reliable enough to act as a basis for
inferences (Galef, 1987; Pfennig, Gamboa, Reeve, Reeve, & Ferguson, 1983; Standing, 1973). However, in
any given environment some data will be usually unavailable (e.g., which city has a higher relative population
size). Figure 1 (compare with Figure 2-2 of Goldstein & Gigerenzer, 1999, p. 42) models the probabilistic rela-
tionship of the elements in an environment appropriate for the recognition heuristic. An inaccessible criterion
Dimase 533
Europe's Journal of Psychology
2019, Vol. 15(3), 531–552
https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i3.1687
https://www.psychopen.eu/
(e.g., a city’s population) is reflected by a mediator (e.g., newspapers, where usually the most populous cities
are mentioned), thus influencing the probability of recognition by the subject (cities mentioned more frequently
tend to have higher recognition rates), who will use it later to infer the criterion. A recognition validity of 1 indi-
cates that a recognized city always has more inhabitants than an unrecognized one.
Figure 1. Ecological rationality of the recognition heuristic in a probabilistically structured environment.
Note. An inaccessible criterion (e.g., population) is reflected by a mediator (e.g., number of mentions in newspapers) that
influences recognition probability. The subject can use recognition to infer the criterion.
Heuristics Without Recognition
Although most published studies agree that participants must be able to recognize the element or elements
presented to them before they can access additional information, the participants involved in the present study
seem to have managed the latter despite the lack of recognition. I posit that the environment they were ex-
posed to before the study of Campitelli and Labollita (2010) must have reflected said inaccessible data through
their components and relationships, from which the participants extracted the information they needed to derive
their subsequent inferences. I will thus consider: (a) the possibility that surnames in that environment had inclu-
ded cues, more precisely suffix morphemes (hereinafter suffixes), linguistic elements located at the end of a
word; (b) the capacity of human beings to detect proper names in an environment; (c) the ability to detect and
record suffixes in words, including proper names; (d) the ability to detect and record regularities and linguistic
relationships, including proper names and morphemes; (e) that certain experiences may have favored the as-
sociation between Slavic suffixes (such as the Russian -ov and -ev, but also the Ukranian -enko) and Russian
nationality above other nationalities; (f) that certain experiences may have favored the association between
Slavic suffixes (not only the Russian ones) and chess. Assuming that participants had no prior knowledge of
these cognitive and environmental aspects, it can be surmised that they were able to detect and register said
aspects without direct instruction and through implicit learning.4
Indeed, Slavic surnames have characteristic suffixes (Álvarez, 1968). For example, in Russia it is common to
add -ov to the name of a child (also -in and -ich); in Poland, -sky or -skiy; typical of Ukraine are -nko and -enko.
However, no univocal correspondence can be drawn between suffixes and nationalities, for suffixes can spread
geographically. Human beings are able to detect surnames (e.g., Birch & Bloom, 2002; Gelman & Taylor, 1984),
as well as their suffixes (e.g., Crepaldi, Rastle, & Davis, 2010) without instruction, unconsciously and after only
brief exposures. In these same conditions they can detect linguistic regularities, such as that Slavic suffixes
tend to appear around occurrences of Russia and related terms, such as Russian, USSR (e.g., Marcus,
Vijayan, Bandi Rao & Vishton, 1999), and create relationships between those elements in their memories (e.g.,
Pruden, Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff, & Hennon, 2006). During the Cold War, the tension between the USSR and the
Heuristics in Judgments with Unrecognized Elements 534
Europe's Journal of Psychology
2019, Vol. 15(3), 531–552
https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i3.1687
https://www.psychopen.eu/
United States enabled a global environment that favored associations between Slavic suffixes and Russian na-
tionality above other Slavic nationalities (Calvert, 2011; Dietrich, 2005; Gerbner, 1991; Mertin, 2008). Finally,
two different associations derived from environmental features may have led participants to assign more Elo
points to the chess players with Slavic-looking surnames, that is, with the suffixes -ov, -ev, -enko and -cki (in-
cluding players like Gashimov, from Azerbaijan, and the Argentines Kovalyov and Zarnicki), not just the Russi-
an players with surnames ending in -ov and -ev: (1) The association of Russia with chess, which resulted in the
estimation of higher ratings for Russian-looking surnames, with suffixes used as cues for their identification; or
(2) The association of certain suffixes with chess, which resulted in the estimation of higher ratings for the sur-
names that included said suffixes. Let's consider the plausibility of each scenario. The dominance held first by
the USSR and later by Russia in the field of international chess (Riordan, 1993) is reflected by the fact that
between 1948 and 1991 almost all the chess world champions were Soviet, while from 1992 to 2007 they were
mainly Russian and of other Slavic nationalities. A large number of players in the top 50 of the world ranking
from 1970 to 1999 were Soviet, and after 1991 from Slavic countries (Howard, 1999). However, the same data
supports the alternative scenario: countless surnames with Slavic suffixes were linked to world-class chess per-
formance, some persistently so. The suffix -ov was found in the surnames of five of the nine world champions
between 1975 and 2006. See the supplementary material for a more in-depth discussion about the topics cov-
ered in this section.
Inference of Russian Nationality
Figure 2 shows the environmental and cognitive characteristics that may have led the participants to infer Rus-
sian nationality.
Figure 2. The probabilistic structure of an environment that may enable the inference of the Russian nationality of a
surname, without recognition: the inaccessible criterion is reflected by an accessible mediator (e.g., the frequency with
which surnames with Slavic suffixes —not only Russian— are reported by the media in proximity or in reference to Russia.
Thanks to the mediator, the subject associates the suffixes with Russia and uses them later to infer this nationality.
The criterion inaccessible to the subject (the Russian nationality of a player) is reflected by an accessible medi-
ator (the frequency with which the surnames with Slavic suffixes —not only Russian— are reported in proximity
or in reference to Russia). The subject thus associates the suffixes with Russia, and uses them later to infer
this nationality. This is an environment of high uncertainty, as defined by Brunswik (1943), Hammond (2001)
and Simon (1990): a given suffix may not always appear clustered near a single nationality, or it could prove
insufficient for discriminating between countries, or the frequency of its occurrences in the proximity of Russia
or related terms might not be representative of its prevalence in Russian surnames. The ecological correlation
indicates how frequently surnames with Slavic suffixes are mentioned by the mediator in proximity or in refer-
ence to Russia (a correlation of 1 means it happens always). The substitute correlation indicates to which ex-
Dimase 535
Europe's Journal of Psychology
2019, Vol. 15(3), 531–552
https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i3.1687
https://www.psychopen.eu/
tent those mentions match the associations that the subjects created between the suffixes and Russia (in con-
trast with the recognition heuristic, the frequency of media reports on the specific surnames presented in
Campitelli and Labollita, 2010, is nor relevant for this study, as participants were not able to recognize them).
The suffix validity referred to in Figure 2 indicates the actual relationship between Russian nationality and sur-
names with Slavic suffixes in that external environment (it could be calculated for one or for the whole set). In
this task, the suffix validity shows the extent to which surnames with Slavic suffixes actually belonged to Russi-
an players and thus allowed the inference of their nationality. For example, the suffix -ov got .43, as three of the
seven foreigners with surnames ending in -ov were Russian (Table 5). A heuristic like "all surnames ending in
-ov are Russian" would yield 43% of correct inferences and 57% of incorrect ones, but it would still outperform
a random assignment of Russian nationality. In light of the cognitive and environmental characteristics descri-
bed, the consistent association of Slavic suffixes (Russian and non-Russian) with Russia is to be expected.
Inference of Ratings for Slavic Players
Figure 3 shows the environmental and cognitive characteristics that may have led the participants to infer a
higher Elo rating for the Slavic players.
Figure 3. The probabilistic structure of an environment that may result in the inference of higher Elo ratings for Slavic
players, with no recognition: the inaccessible criterion is reflected by an accessible mediator (e.g., the frequency with which
surnames with Slavic suffixes —not only Russian— are reported by the media in the context of chess, usually in proximity
or in reference to Russia). Thanks to the mediator, the subject associates Slavic suffixes or Russia with chess, which leads
to the inference of more points for chess players whose surnames include a Slavic suffix or who are Russian (using the
suffix as the sole basis for discrimination).
The criterion inaccessible to the subject (the Slavs’ higher relative ratings) is reflected by an accessible media-
tor (the frequency with which surnames with Slavic suffixes —not only Russian— are mentioned by the media
in the context of chess, usually in proximity or in reference to Russia and related terms). The subject thus asso-
ciates these suffixes or Russia with chess, which leads to the inference of a higher relative rating for chess
players whose surnames include Slavic suffixes or who are Russian (using the suffix as the sole basis for dis-
crimination). There’s uncertainty here as well: it may be that not all players with Slavic suffixes mentioned by
the media have relatively higher Elo ratings, or they might be mentioned for reasons other than their perform-
ance in chess. The ecological correlation indicates the frequency with which Slavic suffixes are mentioned by
the media within the context of chess and in proximity or in relation to Russia and related terms; the substitute
correlation indicates to what extent these mentions correspond with the subject’s associations. The suffix validi-
ty measures the actual relationship between Slavic suffixes and Elo ratings for this external environment. In this
task, it represents the proportion of players with Slavic suffixes that actually had a comparatively higher Elo rat-
ing. Table 5 shows that the rank correlation between all players with Slavic suffixes and their actual points
Heuristics in Judgments with Unrecognized Elements 536
Europe's Journal of Psychology
2019, Vol. 15(3), 531–552
https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i3.1687
https://www.psychopen.eu/
was .44, which suggests that the heuristic of assigning them comparatively more points generally leads to bet-
ter estimates.
Method
In the present study I re-analyzed part of the data presented in Campitelli and Labollita (2010). That article re-
ports a study in which participants were presented with the cognitive reflection test (Frederick, 2005; a number
of risky choice and intertemporal decision-making tasks), and a number of judgment tasks. In this article I’ll fo-
cus on the task of judging the nationalities and Elo ratings of a group of chess players. I will explain the relevant
aspects of Campitelli and Labollita (2010)’s study, and the specific aspects of the current re-analysis.
Participants
The study by Campitelli and Labollita (2010) included 157 volunteers —47 men and 110 women— from the
metropolitan area of Buenos Aires. The average age was 24.4 (SD = 5.4, range 16-43). Of the 157 participants,
I excluded the 34 that recognized at least one of the chess players, as my interest lies only with those who
declared not to recognize any. I then removed the few illegal values received (e.g., estimated Elo ratings below
or above the limits set in the instructions — see Instruments section) without disqualifying the participants; outli-
ers were preserved. One participant who submitted too many illegal responses was excluded. The mean age of
the remaining 123 participants is 23.8 (SD = 4.9, range 16-43).
Material
The participants of Campitelli and Labollita (2010) were given a booklet they had to fill out with their answers.
The section of interest for the present study included four tables (two of them built randomly, two systematical-
ly) containing surnames of chess players. Two were filled in with names of Argentine chess players, and the
other two with names of non-Argentine chess players. The present analysis considers only the following: (a) the
systematic-design table containing non-Argentine players (the only table that included non-Argentine players of
Russian nationality along with players with Slav surnames) and (b) the systematic-design table containing Ar-
gentine players (the only table that included Argentine players with Slav surnames).
The tables had four columns. The first column contained the names of the players. In the second column, the
participants had to indicate whether they recognized each player; in the third column they had to indicate the
nationality of each one (nationality information was pre-filled in the table with Argentine players); in the fourth
column they were asked to indicate their estimated Elo ratings. Appendix A includes adapted versions of these
tables, as well as two extra tables with the correct responses (which, of course, were not accessible by the par-
ticipants).
Variables
I coded all the items shown in Table A.1 and Table A.2 of Appendix A in the following variables: (a) Actual Elo
rating (1200 to 2850), (b) ArgNonArg (Argentine/non-Argentine), (c) RusNonRus (Russian/non-Russian), (d)
SlavNonSlav (Slavic/non-Slavic), and created a number of dummy variables for the suffixes: (e) Suffix -ov (with
-ov/without ov), (f) Suffix -ev (with ev/without ev), (g) Suffix -enko (with -enko/without -enko), (h) Suffix -cki (with
Dimase 537
Europe's Journal of Psychology
2019, Vol. 15(3), 531–552
https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i3.1687
https://www.psychopen.eu/
-cki/without -cki). Also, for each player, it was codified (1/0) the success or failure of the judgment of their na-
tionality. The dependent variables were: (a) nationality accuracy (i.e., whether the participant assigned the na-
tionality correctly), and (b) estimated Elo rating.
For nationality estimation, the mean (M) hit rate was calculated for all the values of each independent variable.
In the case of the Elo rating, the mean estimated rating was calculated for each value of each independent vari-
able. In both cases, the standard deviation (SD) and the standard error (SE) of the mean were calculated for all
levels or values, with a confidence interval (CI) of 95%. Correlations were used to analyze the existence, direc-
tion and strength of the relationships between the variables. To test the hypotheses, inferential analyses were
performed using t tests for paired or related samples (the data to be compared came from the same partici-
pants), with a significance (α) of .05. The p values were obtained through two-tailed tests, and the size of the
Cohen effect d was calculated.
Results
Estimation of Russian Nationality
The 123 participants were able to correctly estimate the nationality of all players in 21.5% of the cases. Table 1
shows the hits disaggregated by variable.
Table 1
Nationality Hits, Disaggregated by Variable
Variable M SD 95% CI
RusNonRus
Russians 0.45 0.35 [0.39, 0.51]
Non-Russians 0.11 0.08 [0.09, 0.12]
Suffix -ev
With -ev 0.33 0.47 [0.25, 0.42]
Without -ev 0.21 0.13 [0.18, 0.23]
Suffix -enko
With -enko 0.36 0.48 [0.27, 0.44]
Without -enko 0.21 0.13 [0.18, 0.23]
Suffix -ov
With -ov 0.23 0.18 [0.20, 0.26]
Without -ov 0.21 0.14 [0.18, 0.23]
Combined
Russians with -ov 0.52 0.42 [0.45, 0.60]
Russians without -ov 0.35 0.38 [0.28, 0.41]
Note. N = 123.
The success rate was significantly higher for the Russian players than for the non-Russians; t(122) = 11.26, p
< .001, Cohen’s d = 1.02.
To investigate the extent to which the Slavic suffixes correlated with the correct estimation of Russian nationali-
ty, I compared the hits obtained by the one player whose surname contained the suffix -ev, corresponding to
Heuristics in Judgments with Unrecognized Elements 538
Europe's Journal of Psychology
2019, Vol. 15(3), 531–552
https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i3.1687
https://www.psychopen.eu/
the Russian Bareev, with the hits of the players without said suffix; that is, everyone else. The differences were
significant: t(122) = 3.14, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.285.
The success rate of the one surname with the suffix -enko, corresponding to the Russian Jakovenko, was sig-
nificantly higher than the success rates of the surnames without said suffix; t(122) = 3.75, p < .001, Cohen’s d =
0.34.
As expected, the difference in success rates between surnames with the suffix -ov and surnames without it was
not significant; t(122) = 1.35, p = .18, Cohen’s d = 0.12. Unlike the two surnames with the suffixes -ev and -
enko, not all surnames with the suffix -ov belonged to Russian players. Table 2 shows virtually no hits for the
surnames ending in -ov that belonged to non-Russian players.
Table 2
Nationality Hits, Disaggregated by Player
Player Actual country M
Karpov Russia 0.55
Malakhov Russia 0.54
Wang China 0.50
Tregubov Russia 0.47
Jakovenko Russia 0.36
Bareev Russia 0.33
Gustafsson Germany 0.29
Adams England 0.20
Van Wely Holland 0.13
Ponomariov Ukraine 0.02
Timman Holland 0.02
Carlsen Norway 0.02
Nielsen Denmark 0.01
Gashimov Azerbaijan 0.00
Aleksandrov Belarus 0.00
Topalov Bulgaria 0.00
I then compared the surnames of Russian players that included the suffix -ov with all the surnames that didn’t
include it: the difference was significant, t(122) = 9.16, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.83; this despite the fact that the
set of surnames without -ov included surnames with the suffixes -ev and -enko, both of which had yielded sig-
nificant success rates when tested against surnames without those suffixes.
To more accurately establish the influence of the suffix -ov, I compared all the Russian surnames that included
the suffix -ov with the Russian surnames that did not, i.e., surnames with the suffixes -ev and -enko, both of
which had yielded significant success rates. The results remained significant: t(122) = 4.68, p < .001, Cohen’s d
= 0.42.
Table 3 shows the suffix validity for Russian nationality expressed as proportions and percentages, as well as
the success rate for each suffix.
Dimase 539
Europe's Journal of Psychology
2019, Vol. 15(3), 531–552
https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i3.1687
https://www.psychopen.eu/
Table 3
Suffix Validity for Russia, and Correct Estimation of Russia
Suffixes Russians/total Validity (%) Success rate for Russians (%)
All 5/9 56 45
-ev 1/1 100 33
-enko 1/1 100 36
-ov 3/7 43 52
Note. All = non-Argentines with surnames ending in -ev, -enko and -ov. Russians = number of
Russian players with those suffixes. Total = number of players (Russians + non-Russians) with
surnames including those suffixes (1 with -ev, 1 with -enko, 7 with -ov; 9 in total). Validity = per-
centage of Russians with those suffixes against the total number of players with those suffixes.
Success rate for Russians = percentage of hits for Russian players with those suffixes.
The second and third columns show the actual number of players of Russian nationality in each suffix group;
the fourth column shows the percentage of players identified as Russian by the participants. Thus, the validity
of Russia for the whole set of suffixes was 56%, since five of the nine surnames with Slavic suffixes belonged
to Russian players. The participants correctly assigned 45% of that 56% to Russia. These successes reveal the
strength of the associations binding these suffixes to Russia in the participants’ memories, which influenced the
level of adherence to the applied heuristics (e.g., when presented with the suffixes -ev and -ov, only 33% of the
participants applied a heuristic such as “ev is a Russian suffix,” whereas a heuristic like “ov is a Russian suffix”
was much more prevalent: the set of Russian players with surnames ending in -ov yielded a success rate of
52%).
Estimation of Elo Ratings for the Slavic Players
Averages for both estimated and actual Elo ratings were calculated for all chess players, showing a correlation
r(123) = .70 between these variables. Table 4 shows the analysis of the estimated ratings.
The participants tended to assign more points to the Slavic players. A t-test on paired samples of estimated
ratings for the Slavs and for the non-Slavs showed significantly higher estimates for the former: t(122) = 2.89, p
< .001, Cohen’s d = 0.56.
At least part of this difference could be explained by the low ratings estimated for Argentines overall, consider-
ing that the set of Slavic players included only two Argentines (Kovalyov and Zarnicki) against the eight Argen-
tines included with the non-Slavs. I then compared the average estimated ratings for Argentines and non-Ar-
gentines, which indeed revealed that rating estimations for non-Argentines had been significantly higher: t(122)
= 6.15, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.56.
To ascertain the extent to which Slavic and Argentine origins accounted for the difference seen in the ratings
estimated for Slavs and non-Slavs, I investigated the relation between suffixes and the ratings estimated for the
Slavic players. The surnames with the suffix -ov had got significantly higher estimates than those without the
suffix ov; i.e., all the other surnames: t(122) = 6.46, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.58.
Because again there were two Argentines among the players with surnames ending in -ov and eight Argentines
among the rest, it was clearly feasible that the lower ratings estimated for the Argentines in general had brought
Heuristics in Judgments with Unrecognized Elements 540
Europe's Journal of Psychology
2019, Vol. 15(3), 531–552
https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i3.1687
https://www.psychopen.eu/
down the relative ratings of the group without the suffix -ov. However, even the ratings estimated for the non-
Argentines with surnames ending in -ov were significantly higher than the ratings estimated for the non-Argen-
tines with surnames not ending in -ov; t(122) = 2.89, p = .005, Cohen’s d = 0.26.
Table 4
Estimated Elo Ratings, Disaggregated by Variable
Variable M SD 95% CI
All players 2484.94 106.38 [2465.98, 2503.95]
SlavNonSlav
Slavs 2509.72 114.87 [2489.22, 2530.23]
Non-Slavs 2466.71 111.64 [2446.78, 2486.64]
ArgNonArg
Argentines 2435.52 136.44 [2411.17, 2459.87]
Non-Argentines 2516.20 121.63 [2494.49, 2537.91]
Suffix -ov
With -ov 2519.93 122.18 [2498.12, 2541.73]
Without -ov 2469.41 109.74 [2449.83, 2489.00]
Combined
Non-Argentines with -ov 2530.03 130.21 [2506.79, 2553.27]
Non-Argentines without -ov 2505.57 130.73 [2482.23, 2528.90]
Non-Argentines non-Slavs 2507.89 133.23 [2484.11, 2531.67]
Argentines Slavs 2451.96 171.96 [2421.27, 2482.66]
Argentines non-Slavs 2430.85 137.14 [2406.37, 2455.33]
Argentines with -ov 2451.03 178.64 [2418.73, 2483.32]
Argentines without -ov 2443.84 146.55 [2417.34, 2470.33]
Note. N = 123.
By contrast, the surnames with the suffixes -ev and -enko received the lowest estimates among the non-Argen-
tine Slavs, and ranked in the bottom four of all non-Argentine players. To find out if these ratings accounted for
the significantly lower estimates obtained by the surnames of non-Argentines that didn’t include the suffix -ov
compared to those non-Argentines that did, I compared the surnames of non-Argentines ending in -ov against
the surnames of the non-Argentines that didn’t have a Slavic origin (i.e., excluding Bareev and Jakovenko):
even here, the non-Argentines with surnames ending in -ov showed higher ratings than the rest of the non-Ar-
gentines; t(122) = 2.57, p = .011, Cohen’s d = 0.23.
The Slavic Argentines, however, did not get higher ratings than the non-Slavic Argentines; t(122) = 1.93, p
= .056, Cohen’s d = 0.17.
Despite the relation between the suffix -ov and higher estimated ratings, the Argentine player whose surname
included the suffix -ov, Kovalyov, did not get a higher rating than the rest of the Argentines; t(119) = 0.61, p
= .545, Cohen’s d = 0.06.
Table 5 correlates suffix validities with actual Elo ratings for this task, and shows the relationship between suf-
fixes and estimated Elo ratings.
Dimase 541
Europe's Journal of Psychology
2019, Vol. 15(3), 531–552
https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i3.1687
https://www.psychopen.eu/
Table 5
Suffix Validity Against Actual Elo, and Relation Between Suffixes and Estimated Elo
Suffixes Validity Against Actual Elo Relation with Estimated Elo
All .44 .43
-ov .41 .47
Note. All = -ev, -enko and -ov. Numbers express correlations.
The second column shows the associative strength of the Slavic suffixes with the actual ratings of the players
whose surnames contained those suffixes, and summarizes their relative position as shown in Table B.1 in the
Appendix B. The rank correlation of .44 shows that the Slavic players chosen by Campitelli and Labollita (2010)
tended to have higher real-world Elo ratings than the non-Slavs. The correlation of .43 shown on the third col-
umn illustrates the relational strength of these elements in the participants' memories. The actual Elo ratings of
the players with surnames ending in -ov was generally higher than the ratings of the rest of the players, and the
participants thought along the same lines: the correlation between the estimated and actual ratings of the play-
ers with surnames ending in -ov was .47 (.61 between estimated and actual ratings for Slavic players; .70 be-
tween estimated and actual ratings for all players).
Discussion
Inference of Russian Nationality
Even without recognizing the players’ names, the participants correctly estimated Russian nationality to a sig-
nificantly higher degree than other nationalities. I propose that the participants resorted to previously created
memories that allowed them to detect the suffixes -ov, -ev and -enko present in the surnames, and evaluate
them as useful based on basic cognitive abilities and environmental characteristics, namely: the suffixes -ov, -
ev and -enko appear in Slavic surnames; the participants were able to identify surnames without direct instruc-
tion and without intention; they could also indirectly and implicitly identify and retain regularities appearing in
surnames, such as suffixes, after only a handful of brief exposures (Marquis & Shi, 2012; Pacton, Fayol, &
Perruchet, 2005). The heuristics based on the three Slavic suffixes (not only the Russian -ov and -ev) may
have resulted in the higher success rates seen in the estimation of Russian nationality, even though the suffix -
ev showed the weakest relation, followed by the suffix -enko (whose link to Russia was corroborated despite
being Ukrainian). The Russian players whose surnames included the suffix -ov scored a higher number of hits
than the rest of the players (including Russians with surnames ending in -ev and -enko), corroborating that -ov
was not associated to nations such as Gashimov’s Azerbaijan or Aleksandrov’s Belarus.
Alternative Explanations
Considering that participants were asked to estimate the nationality of chess players, it is plausible to think that
mass-assigning Russian nationality to all players based on the association between Russia and chess would
have sufficed to get success rates above random chance. However, the evidence suggests this was not the
strategy applied, given that:
• The hit rate for the Russian players would have been 100%, and not 45%.
Heuristics in Judgments with Unrecognized Elements 542
Europe's Journal of Psychology
2019, Vol. 15(3), 531–552
https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i3.1687
https://www.psychopen.eu/
• The hit rate for the non-Russian players would have been 0% and not 11%.
• A quick examination of individual results reveals that no subject estimated the nationality of all Russians
correctly without estimating some other nationality correctly as well.
There is another improbable, but not impossible explanation: that the significant success rates were the result
of a set of participants massively assigning Russia except for some other nationality which they also assigned
correctly, while most of the hits for non-Russian nationalities came from another set of participants who did not
mass-assign Russia and failed to identify any Russian player. This scenario, however, doesn’t account for the
significant differences in success rates between the Russians with surnames ending in -ov (52%) and the Rus-
sians with surnames not ending in -ov, i.e., with the suffix -ev or -enko (35%).
There is another, more unlikely scenario: that a set of participants mass-assigned the Russian nationality ex-
cept for some other nationality which they also assigned correctly, while the hits for non-Russians were scored
by another set of participants who also identified correctly some of the Russian players based on the suffixes in
their surnames, particularly -ov. This would explain the hit rates for the Russians overall as well as the differen-
ces between the Russians with surnames containing the suffix -ov and those without it. But this scenario can
also be ruled out: even if a second set of participants had acted as described, a quick glance at the results
reveals that only 17 subjects correctly assigned the Russian nationality to all Russians. Considering that they
also assigned correctly at least one other nationality, it follows that not even them assigned Russia blindly.
Could the Russian successes be ascribed to chance? In fact, why did I compare the hits for the Russians with
those for the rest of the players, instead of comparing them against random chance? The comparison with
chance requires establishing the absolute number of nationalities out of which Russia could have been chosen.
If all world countries were considered, the probability of choosing Russia by chance would be close to 1/200. If
we then consider the probability of correctly assigning Russia to one or more Russian players by chance, the
expected hits would be much lower than those achieved. However, it would be incorrect to assume that the par-
ticipants knew all the countries in the world. What would be an appropriate number? One hundred nationalities?
Fifty? It’s anyone’s guess. A relative comparison with the hits obtained for the other nationalities avoids this
problem. If, nevertheless, an approximation is wanted, it could be assumed conservatively that this sample of
subjects knew on average 25 nationalities, in which case the probability of choosing Russia by chance would
be 1/25. Compounding this with the probability of correctly assigning Russian nationality to one or more Russi-
ans, the expected successes should still be much lower than those obtained. On the other hand, the request to
estimate the nationality of chess players could have triggered an association with Russia that eliminated the
need for choice, but even the expected success rate of one Russian correctly identified in five attempts would
still be significantly lower than the results obtained.
Inference of Points for the Slavic Players
Even with no recognition, participants assigned significantly higher ratings to the Slavic players with surnames
ending in -ov than they did to the rest of the players, a result supported by the cognitive abilities and environ-
mental characteristics explained. The Slavs with surnames ending in -ev and -enko, on the other hand, were
assigned comparatively low ratings. The superior performance associated with the suffix -ov persisted even
when Argentines were excluded from both subsets (they obtained a significantly lower average rating than non-
Dimase 543
Europe's Journal of Psychology
2019, Vol. 15(3), 531–552
https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i3.1687
https://www.psychopen.eu/
Argentines), and even when the Slavs with surnames ending in -ev or -enko were excluded from the non-Ar-
gentines subset.
Alternative Explanations
The reason why chess players with surnames ending in -ov were assigned higher ratings may be explained by
(a) an association between Russia and good chess performance, which led to the assignment of more points to
surnames with the suffix -ov because they looked Russian (it was one of the suffixes associated with Russia) or
(b) an association between -ov and good chess performance, which led to the assignment of more points to
surnames with that suffix. The first association is based on Russia's dominance in the field of international
chess (Howard, 1999; Riordan, 1993), a fact that has been widely disseminated (Calvert, 2011; Gerbner, 1991).
The second association is derived from the historical media coverage of countless players with surnames end-
ing in -ov, including world champions such as the very well-known Kasparov. The results support the latter sce-
nario; if the heuristic that produced higher ratings for the surnames with the suffix -ov had been based on the
connection between Russia and good chess performance, the surnames with the suffixes -ev and -enko should
also have received significantly higher scores in relative terms, since they were correctly identified as Russian.
Therefore, the heuristic that in this study led to the estimation of higher average Elo ratings for the Slavs
emerged from the association of the suffix -ov with good chess performance, an association which is compati-
ble with the human ability to detect and retain relationships between elements of different words based on repe-
tition and proximity, implicitly, and without direct instruction.
Compensatory Usage
The ratings estimated for the Argentines were significantly lower than for non-Argentines, a result which reflects
Argentina’s middling performance in the field of international chess and the relatively low Elo ratings achieved
by Argentines compared with other nationalities (see Appendix B, Table B.1). Not even the single Argentine
player that did have a surname ending in -ov (Kovalyov) scored significantly higher points than the rest of the
Argentines. Although the evidence is limited to a sample of a single player, the heuristic that led to the assign-
ment of high ratings to the surnames with the suffix -ov may have been applied to Kovalyov in a compensatory
way (as opposed to non-compensatory or indiscriminate — Kurz-Milcke & Gigerenzer, 2007). The temporary
suspension of a heuristic on account of additional knowledge (the Argentine nationality as pertains to chess
performance) and the compensatory use of additional cues for judgment-making is consistent with previous
studies (e.g., Pachur & Hertwig, 2006; see Pachur, 2011, for a broad discussion).
Detection and Processing of Suffixes
It may be tempting to attribute to recognition the participant’s detection, and at least part of their processing, of
the suffixes present in the surnames of the chess players. It is advisable, however, not to yield to this tempta-
tion: not only is the data collected in this study insufficient, but also the disagreements in the current theoretical
field would make it difficult to attribute their detection and processing to familiarity, fluency, availability, recogni-
tion, etc. (see the supplementary material for a more in-depth discussion).
However, these existing controversies make the findings in this research even more relevant, since the use of
linguistic cues in the large number of heuristics studies where the participants recognized the elements presen-
ted cannot be ruled out. The implications are huge, since at least part of these investigations might have inclu-
ded variables that introduced confusion or interactions unsuspected until now. For example, many city names
Heuristics in Judgments with Unrecognized Elements 544
Europe's Journal of Psychology
2019, Vol. 15(3), 531–552
https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i3.1687
https://www.psychopen.eu/
used in recognition tasks may have contained suffixes (perhaps also prefixes or infixes) that influenced the par-
ticipants’ decisions when facing not only two unrecognized cities, but also two recognized cities or even a rec-
ognized city and an unrecognized one. Additionally, in each case these morphemes might have exerted some
influence before or after the subjects detected the degree of familiarity, fluency, availability, recognition, etc., of
the cities presented to them.
Exploitation of the Environment and Ecological Rationality
The results provided evidence on the exploitation of information present in a probabilistic environment external
to the laboratory (Brunswik, 1943; Hammond, 2001; Simon, 1990) by way of heuristics that without recognition
were ecologically rational thanks to their adaptation to said environment (Gigerenzer & Todd, 1999).
The evidence provided by the successful estimates of Russian nationality is consistent with the environment
depicted in Figure 2. Although the value of its ecological correlation could not be obtained, the assumption is
that surnames containing Slavic suffixes had been mentioned repeatedly by mediators in proximity or in refer-
ence to Russia and related terms, with a higher frequency than other nationalities. Although the substitute cor-
relation could not be obtained either, the assumption is that the mediators had disseminated a larger number of
surnames with Slavic suffixes in connection with Russia and related terms than they did in connection with oth-
er countries, although perhaps unevenly: the associative force was greater for the suffix -ov than for -ev or -
enko. Table 3 shows the suffix validities for Russia in this task, although the actual validity of each suffix with
respect to Russia in that external environment remains unknown (i.e., to what extent people of the world with
surnames containing the suffixes -ov, -ev or -enko are actually Russian).
The evidence provided by the assignment of higher ratings to Slavic players in the absence of recognition is
consistent with the environment depicted in Figure 3. Although the value of its ecological correlation could not
be obtained, it must be assumed that mediators had repeatedly mentioned surnames including the suffix -ov in
the context of chess (the results do not directly require that these mentions be made in the proximity of or con-
nected with Russia and related terms). The value of the substitute correlation could not be obtained either, but it
must be assumed that mediators had disseminated at least the suffix -ov in the context of chess, since the sur-
names with this suffix scored significantly higher ratings. Table 5 shows the suffix validities as related to actual
Elo points for this task, although the actual validity for each suffix in terms of Elo points is unknown for that
external environment (i.e., to what extent chess players of the world whose surnames contain the suffixes -ov, -
ev or -enko actually have higher relative ratings).
Limitations
The re-analysis of the judgment-making task described in Campitelli and Labollita (2010), which required partic-
ipants to estimate the nationality of chess players, was based on the correct and incorrect estimations of the
players’ actual nationalities. Naturally, the answer set included the countries assigned incorrectly as well as the
correct ones. Unfortunately, the actual contents of each answer were lost during the digitization process under-
taken by the authors, and only their correctness values were preserved. This missing information would have
allowed me to analyze in greater depth the link between suffixes and countries, as well as the structure of the
environments that generated those associations. For example, while the significant assignment of Russia to the
Russian player Jakovenko (whose surname contains a Ukrainian suffix) corroborated the hypothesis that the
suffix -enko would be associated with Russia, we can only guess which countries were picked by the partici-
Dimase 545
Europe's Journal of Psychology
2019, Vol. 15(3), 531–552
https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i3.1687
https://www.psychopen.eu/
pants with incorrect answers. Ukraine? Which other nationalities were assigned to the Russian players with sur-
names containing the suffix -ov? Were Gashimov, Alexandrov and Topalov, who were not Russian and did not
score any hit, also considered Russians? We have no answer for these questions.
The stimuli did not include non-Argentine players with the suffix cki, who could have provided additional infor-
mation about this suffix, nor were included Argentines with the suffixes -ev and -enko.
No data could be obtained from the real environments in terms of ecological correlation, the substitute correla-
tion, the suffix validity for Russian nationality and the suffix validity for Elo ratings. These would have allowed
me to analyze the results in more depth.
It was not possible to carry out an individual, per-subject analysis (it would have required many more answers),
which is a mandatory requirement for the study of heuristics according to some researchers of the fast-and-
frugal heuristics program (despite the fact that the heuristics presented here were not classified as fast or fru-
gal). For an introduction to the aforementioned requirements, the debate they elicited and the analytical meth-
odology adopted, see Brighton and Gigerenzer (2011); Gigerenzer and Brighton (2009); Gigerenzer and
Goldstein (1996); Goldstein and Gigerenzer (2002); Hilbig and Richter (2011).
Conclusions
According to published studies in the field, random choice and random estimation are the only options for tack-
ling judgment and decision-making tasks where the elements required to infer a criteria are not recognized
(e.g., Gigerenzer & Goldstein, 1996; Goldstein & Gigerenzer, 2002; Pohl, 2011). The present re-analysis re-
vealed heuristics that led to the correct inference of Russian nationality and relative Elo ratings for unrecog-
nized chess players. These heuristics were ecologically rational due to the correspondence of their results with
reality (Gigerenzer & Todd, 1999) and the relationship of the participants with the environment that facilitated
them (Brunswik, 1943; Hammond, 2001; Simon, 1990).
The results support the use of models of limited rationality to characterize human psychology, since participants
applied heuristics to achieve success rates above chance level, despite the risk of overestimating the heuri-
stics’ effectiveness and underestimating the participants’ own biases, a behavior justified in evolutionary terms
(e.g., Haselton & Nettle, 2006). I thus invite a revision of what is considered “good reasoning” when applied to
human beings facing problems in environments of uncertainty that typically call for satisfactory, rather than opti-
mal, solutions.
My hope is that this study will provide a basis for new studies in the field of heuristics under previously unex-
plored conditions, and a new perspective for the analysis of previous works, towards a better understanding of
the relationship between cognition and the environment.
Notes
1) “Frugal” in the sense of using few cognitive resources.
2) Competitive chess performance is rated through a scoring system named Elo after its creator, Arpad Elo (1978). The Elo
points obtained by players in each tournament are periodically computed by the International Chess Federation and
determine the players’ position in the international ranking.
3) Surnames linked to nations with Slavic languages. In the current political division, this includes the languages of Poland,
Ukraine, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Slovenia, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Croatia, Czech Republic, Slovakia,
Heuristics in Judgments with Unrecognized Elements 546
Europe's Journal of Psychology
2019, Vol. 15(3), 531–552
https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i3.1687
https://www.psychopen.eu/
Belarus and Russia (Browne, 2014). Virtually all of these territories were part of the Soviet Union, along with other countries
whose languages belong to other linguistic groups but which also had a strong Slavic influence (e.g., Azerbaijan, nationality
of the player Gashimov —see Table 3 in the Appendix— whose surname is of Slavic origin).
4) The cited papers use different terms for the type of instruction the participants resorted to ("direct," "explicit",
"deliberate"). These terms should all be considered equivalent, as they comprise some of the following: an instructor makes
explicit the intention that an instructee learn about a particular subject; encourages them to reflect on the content they are
being exposed to; ensures they are aware of any rules; deliberately directs their attention towards certain attributes or
regularities of the stimuli (see, e.g., Ellis, 2010). Also, the terms "implicit", "incidental" and "unconscious" learning refer to
certain common characteristics, such as: learning new information without trying; adapting to environmental regularities
without intention; learning without realizing it; evidencing knowledge without being aware of it (e.g., Pacton et al., 2005;
Perruchet and Pacton, 2006).
5) My hypothesis stated that I would look for evidence of the use of suffixes via the indirect method of comparing the
success rates of Russian players with the rates achieved by non-Russians. As the additional comparisons that I will
describe next have not been outlined, certain methodological schools might demand that they be treated as post-hoc tests
(tests generated by a researcher a posteriori of a study’s known data/results), and that their significance (p values) be
adjusted through some of the methods designed for unplanned multiple tests. Failure to do so, it may be argued, would
artificially inflate the probability of finding significant differences. For articles in favor of this adjustment, see Holm's (1979)
foundational study or Shaffer's (1995) review. For articles against, see Perneger (1998) or O'Keefe (2003). Although I agree
with those who consider it generally incorrect to adjust multiple tests (even unplanned ones), I adjusted them using the
Benjamini-Yekutieli method for dependent tests (e.g., Benjamini & Yekutieli, 2001): their significance did not change, so I will
report the unadjusted p values.
Funding
The author has no funding to report.
Competing Interests
The author has declared that no competing interests exist.
Acknowledgments
I thank Guillermo Campitelli for his comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. I am very grateful to Carlos Anllo for
his proofreadings and his invaluable help with my English.
Re fer en ce s
Álvarez, G. J. (1968). Topónimos en apellidos hispanos. Garden City, NY, USA: Adelphi University.
Benjamini, Y., & Yekutieli, D. (2001). The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Annals of
Statistics, 29, 1165-1188. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1013699998
Birch, S. A., & Bloom, P. (2002). Preschoolers are sensitive to the speaker’s knowledge when learning proper names. Child
Development, 73(2), 434-444. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00416
Borges, B., Goldstein, D. G., Ortmann, A., & Gigerenzer, G. (1999). Can ignorance beat the stock market? In G. Gigerenzer,
P. M. Todd, & the ABC Research Group (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 59-72). New York, NY, USA:
Oxford University Press.
Brighton, H., & Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Towards competitive instead of biased testing of heuristics: A reply to Hilbig and
Richter (2011). Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(1), 197-205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01124.x
Dimase 547
Europe's Journal of Psychology
2019, Vol. 15(3), 531–552
https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i3.1687
https://doi.org/10.1214%2Faos%2F1013699998
https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1467-8624.00416
https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1756-8765.2010.01124.x
https://www.psychopen.eu/
Browne, W. (2014). Slavic languages. In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrived from
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/548460/Slavic-languages/74904/The-modern-Slavic-languages
Brunswik, E. (1943). Organismic achievement and environmental probability. Psychological Review, 50, 255-272.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0060889
Calvert, S. (2011) Framing the Soviet athlete in American media. The Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in
Communications, 2(2), 86-94.
Campitelli, G., & Labollita, M. (2010). Correlations of cognitive reflection with judgments and choices. Judgment and
Decision Making, 5(3), 182-191.
Crepaldi, D., Rastle, K., & Davis, C. J. (2010). Morphemes in their place: Evidence for position-specific identification of
suffixes. Memory & Cognition, 38(3), 312-321. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.3.312
Dietrich, A. P. (2005). Language policy and the status of Russian in the Soviet Union and the successor states outside the
Russian Federation. Australian Slavonic and East European Studies, 19(1-2), 1-27.
Dunwoody, P. (2009). Theories of truth as assessment criteria in judgment and decision making. Judgment and Decision
Making, 4(2), 116-125.
Ellis, R. (2010). Does explicit grammar instruction work? NINJAL Project Review, 1(2), 3-22.
Elo, A. E. (1978). The rating of chessplayers, past and present. New York, NY, USA: Arco Pub.
Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25-42.
https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732
Gaissmaier, G., & Marewski, J. (2011) Forecasting elections with mere recognition from small, lousy samples: A comparison
of collective recognition, wisdom of crowds, and representative polls. Judgment and Decision Making, 1(6), 73-88.
Galef, B. G. (1987). Social influences on the identification of toxic foods by Norway rats. Animal Learning & Behavior, 15,
327-332. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205027
Gelman, S., & Taylor, M. (1984). How two-year-old children interpret proper and common names for unfamiliar objects.
Child Development, 55, 1535-1540. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130023
Gerbner, G. (1991). The image of Russians in American media and the “New Epoch”. In E. E. Dennis, G. Gerbner, & Y. N.
Zassoursky (Eds.). Beyond the Cold War: Soviet and American media images (pp. 31-36). Newbury Park, CA, USA:
Sage Publications.
Gigerenzer, G. (2007). Gut feelings: The intelligence of the unconscious. New York, NY, USA: Viking Press.
Gigerenzer, G., & Brighton, H. (2009). Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in Cognitive
Science. 1, 107-144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01006.x
Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological
Review. 103(4), 650-669. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.650
Heuristics in Judgments with Unrecognized Elements 548
Europe's Journal of Psychology
2019, Vol. 15(3), 531–552
https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i3.1687
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/548460/Slavic-languages/74904/The-modern-Slavic-languages
https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0060889
https://doi.org/10.3758%2FMC.38.3.312
https://doi.org/10.1257%2F089533005775196732
https://doi.org/10.3758%2FBF03205027
https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1130023
https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1756-8765.2008.01006.x
https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0033-295X.103.4.650
https://www.psychopen.eu/
Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. M. (1999). Fast and frugal heuristics. The adaptive toolbox. In G. Gigerenzer, P. M. Todd, & The
ABC Research Group (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 3-34). New York, NY, USA: Oxford University
Press.
Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (1999). The recognition heuristic: How ignorance makes us smart. In G. Gigerenzer, P.
M. Todd, & The ABC Research Group (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 37-58). New York, NY, USA:
Oxford University Press.
Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic. Psychological Review,
109(1), 75-90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.1.75
Hammond, K. R. (2001). How probabilistic functionalism advances evolutionary psychology. In K. R. Hammond, & T. R.
Stewart (Eds.), The essential Brunswik: Beginnings, explications, applications (pp. 434-441). New York, NY, USA:
Oxford University Press.
Haselton, M. G., & Nettle, D. (2006). The paranoid optimist: An integrative evolutionary model of cognitive biases.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(1), ) 47-66. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1001_3
Hilbig, B. E., & Richter, T. (2011). Homo heuristicus outnumbered: Comment on Gigerenzer and Brighton (2009). Topics in
Cognitive Science, 3(1), 187-196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01123.x
Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequential rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics. 6, 65-70.
Howard, R. W. (1999). Preliminary real-world evidence that average human intelligence really is rising. Intelligence, 27(3),
235-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(99)00018-5
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Kurz-Milcke, E., & Gigerenzer, G. (2007). Heuristic decision making. Marketing-Journal of Research and Management, 1,
48-56.
Marcus, G. F., Vijayan, S., Bandi Rao, S., & Vishton, P. M. (1999). Rule learning by seven-month-old infants. Science, 283,
77-80. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.283.5398.77
Marquis, A., & Shi, R. (2012). Initial morphological learning in preverbal infants. Cognition, 122, 61-66.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.07.004
Mertin, E. (2008). Ethnic minorities and national identity in Soviet sport. Studies in Physical Culture and Tourism, 15(3),
165-170.
O’Keefe, D. J. (2003). Against familywise alpha adjustment. Human Communication Research, 29, 431-447.
https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/29.3.431
Pachur, T. (2011). The limited value of precise tests of the recognition heuristic. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(5),
413-422.
Pachur, T., & Hertwig, R. (2006). On the psychology of the recognition heuristic: Retrieval primacy as a key determinant of
its use. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 32(5), 983-1002.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.5.983
Dimase 549
Europe's Journal of Psychology
2019, Vol. 15(3), 531–552
https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i3.1687
https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0033-295X.109.1.75
https://doi.org/10.1207%2Fs15327957pspr1001_3
https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1756-8765.2010.01123.x
https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS0160-2896%2899%2900018-5
https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.283.5398.77
https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cognition.2011.07.004
https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fhcr%2F29.3.431
https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0278-7393.32.5.983
https://www.psychopen.eu/
Pacton, S., Fayol, M., & Perruchet, P. (2005). Children's implicit learning of graphotactic and morphological regularities.
Child Development, 76(2), 324-339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00848_a.x
Perneger, T. V. (1998). What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. British Medical Journal, 316, 1236-1238.
Perruchet, P., & Pacton, S. (2006). Implicit learning and statistical learning: One phenomenon, two approaches. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences. 10(5), 233-238.
Pfennig, D., Gamboa, G., Reeve, H., Reeve, J., & Ferguson, I. (1983). The mechanism of nestmate discrimination in social
wasps. Behavioral Ecology & Sociobiology, 13, 299-305. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00299677
Pohl, R. F. (2011). On the use of recognition in inferential decision making: An overview of the debate. Judgment and
Decision Making, 6, 423-438.
Pruden, S. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hennon, E. A. (2006). The birth of words: Ten-month-olds learn words
through perceptual salience. Child Development, 77(2), 266-280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00869.x
Real Academia Española. (2012). Diccionario de la lengua española (22.a ed.). Madrid, Spain: Espasa. Retrived from:
http://www.rae.es/recursos/diccionarios/drae
Riordan, J. (1993). Rewriting soviet sports history. Journal of Sports History, 20(3), 247-258.
Shaffer, J. P. (1995). “Multiple hypothesis testing.” Annual Review of Psychology, 46(1), 561-584.
Simon, H. A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology. 41, 1-19.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.000245
Scheibehenne, B., & Bröder, A. (2007). Predicting Wimbledon 2005 tennis results by mere player name recognition.
International Journal of Forecasting. 3, 415-426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2007.05.006
Serwe, S., & Frings, C. (2006). Who will win Wimbledon? The recognition heuristic in predicting sports events. Journal of
Behavioral Decision Making. 19, 321-332. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.530
Standing, L. (1973). Learning 10000 pictures. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25(2), 207-222.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14640747308400340
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5,
207-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9
A ppe ndic es
Appendix A
Instructions and Tables Presented to Participants of Campitelli and Labollita (2010)
In the following two lists you will find names of Argentine and non-Argentine chess players. You must complete the following
for each of them:
1. Indicate if you knew a chess player with that name before this investigation.
2. Indicate country of origin for each non-Argentine player.
Heuristics in Judgments with Unrecognized Elements 550
Europe's Journal of Psychology
2019, Vol. 15(3), 531–552
https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i3.1687
https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-8624.2005.00848_a.x
https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF00299677
https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-8624.2006.00869.x
http://www.rae.es/recursos/diccionarios/drae
https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev.ps.41.020190.000245
https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.ijforecast.2007.05.006
https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fbdm.530
https://doi.org/10.1080%2F14640747308400340
https://doi.org/10.1016%2F0010-0285%2873%2990033-9
https://www.psychopen.eu/
3. Assign Elo points for each chess player. Keep in mind that chess ranking is measured in points ranging from 1,200 (low
level amateurs) to 2,850 (best player in the world).
Table A.1
Non-Argentine Players.
Surname ¿Do you know her? (Yes/No) Country Elo points
Van Welly
Nielsen
Bareev
Gustafsson
Jakovenko
Wang
Karpov
Malakhov
Gashimov
Aleksandrov
Tregubov
Topalov
Carlsen
Adams
Ponomariov
Timman
Table A.2
Argentine Players
Surname ¿Do you know her? (Yes/No) Country Elo points
Villanueva Argentina
Flores Argentina
Kovalyov Argentina
Hase Argentina
Lorenzini Argentina
Adla Argentina
Amura Argentina
Zarnicki Argentina
Peralta Argentina
Luconi Argentina
Appendix B
Chess Players’ Countries and Real Elo Points Presented in Campitelli and Labollita (2010)
Table B.1
Countries and Actual Elo Points (Ordered by Elo)
Surname Actual country Actual Elo points
Topalov Bulgaria 2,813
Carlsen Norway 2,772
Jakovenko Russia 2,742
Ponomariov Ukraine 2,741
Dimase 551
Europe's Journal of Psychology
2019, Vol. 15(3), 531–552
https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i3.1687
https://www.psychopen.eu/
Surname Actual country Actual Elo points
Gashimov Azerbaijan 2,740
Wang China 2,736
Malakhov Russia 2,715
Nielsen Denmark 2,687
Adams England 2,682
Van Welly Holland 2,651
Tregubov Russia 2,649
Aleksandrov Belarus 2,639
Bareev Russia 2,633
Gustafsson Germany 2,622
Karpov Russia 2,619
Flores Argentine 2,607
Timman Holland 2,588
Kovalyov Argentine 2,577
Peralta Argentine 2,565
Zarnicki Argentine 2,515
Adla Argentine 2,498
Lorenzini Argentine 2,458
Amura Argentine 2,335
Villanueva Argentine 2,326
Luconi Argentine 2,293
Hase Argentine 2,279
A bout the Aut hor
Miguel Dimase is an independent teacher and writer. He has completed studies in the fields of Computer Science (Univer-
sidad Católica de Salta, Argentina), Pedagogy (Universidad Tecnológica Nacional, Argentina) and Cognitive Psychology
(Master’s Degree in Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina). He has specialized in teaching learning strategies and tech-
niques. His current writings encompass the fields of learning, psychology and electricity.
Heuristics in Judgments with Unrecognized Elements 552
Europe's Journal of Psychology
2019, Vol. 15(3), 531–552
https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i3.1687
PsychOpen GOLD is a publishing service by
Leibniz Institute for Psychology Information (ZPID),
Trier, Germany. www.leibniz-psychology.org
https://www.leibniz-psychology.org/
https://www.psychopen.eu/
Heuristics in Judgments with Unrecognized Elements
(Introduction)
Overview of the Present Study
Inferences and Heuristics with Limited Information
Heuristics and Environmental Structures
Heuristics Without Recognition
Inference of Russian Nationality
Inference of Ratings for Slavic Players
Method
Participants
Material
Variables
Results
Estimation of Russian Nationality
Estimation of Elo Ratings for the Slavic Players
Discussion
Inference of Russian Nationality
Inference of Points for the Slavic Players
Detection and Processing of Suffixes
Exploitation of the Environment and Ecological Rationality
Limitations
Conclusions
Notes
(Additional Information)
Funding
Competing Interests
Acknowledgments
References
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
About the Author